:^1 


■^ 


Gnnr  or 
Miss  Prances  Molera 


N~V^'  * 


COUNT  TOLSTOI'S    WORKS. 

ANNA   KAR^NINA $1.75 

CHILDHOOD,  BOYHOOD,  AND  YOUTH  .  1.50 

IVAN    ILYITCH 1.25 

MY   RELIGION 1.00 

MY   CONFESSION 1 .00 

WHAT  TO    DO? 1.25 

THE   INVADERS 1.25 

A   RUSSIAN    PROPRIETOR 1.50 

NAPOLEON'S    RUSSIAN    CAMPAIGN    .     .  1.00 

THE   LONG   EXILE 1.25 

THOMAS  Y.   CROWELL   &.  CO., 

PUBLISHERS, 
13  ASTOR  PLACE,  NEW  YORK. 


MY   BELIGIOK 


BY 


COUNT   L.  N.  TOLSTOI. 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  FRENCH  BY 
HUNTINGTON    SMITH. 


NEW  YORK  : 
THOMAS   Y.  CROWELL   &   CO., 

13  Astob  Place. 


PRESERVATION 
COPY  ADDED 
ORIGINAL  TO  BE 
RETAINED 


MAR  2  1  1994 


Copyright,  1885, 
By  THOMAS  Y.  CROWELL  &  CO. 


©WOT 


TEANSLATOR'S  PREFACE. 


TO  one  not  familiar  with  the  Russian  language 
the  accessible  data  relative  to  the  external  life 
of  Leo  Nikolaevich  Tolstoi,  the  author  of  this  book, 
are,  to  say  the  least,  not  voluminous.  His  name  does 
not  appear  in  that  heterogeneous  record  of  celebrities 
known  as  The  Men  of  the  Time,  nor  is  it  to  be  found 
in  M.  Vapereau's  comprehensive  Dictionnaire  des 
Contemporains.  And  yet  Count  Leo  Tolstoi  is 
acknowledged  by  competent  critics  to  be  a  man  of 
extraordinary  genius,  who,  certainly  in  one  instance, 
has  produced  a  masterpiece  of  literature  which  will 
continue  to  rank  with  the  great  artistic  productions 
of  this  age. 

Perhaps  it  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  he  was 
born  on  his  father's  estate  in  the  Russian  province 
of  Tula,  in  the  year  1828  ;  that  he  received  a  good 
home  education  and  studied  the  oriental  languages 
at  the  University  of  Kasan  ;  that  he  was  for  a  time 
in  the  army,  which  he  entered  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
three  as  an  officer  of  artillery,  serving  later  on  the 
staff  of  Prince  Gortschakof  ;  and  that  subsequently 
he  alternated  between  St.  Petersburg  and  Moscow, 
leading   the   existence    of   super-refined   barbarism 


M5n.'*>2RQ 


IV  TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE. 

and  excessive  luxury,  characteristic  of  the  Rus- 
Bian  aristocracy.  He  saw  life  in  country  and 
city,  in  camp  and  court.  He  was  numbered  among 
the  defenders  of  Sebastopol  in  the  Crimean  War, 
and  the  impressions  then  gathered  he  used  as 
material  for  a  series  of  War  Sketches  that  attracted 
attention  in  the  pages  of  the  magazine  where 
they  first  appeared ;  and  when,  a  little  later,  they 
were  published  in  book  form,  their  author,  then 
twenty-eight  years  of  age,  acquired  at  once  a  wide 
popularit}*.  Popularity  became  fame  with  the  pub- 
lication, also  in  1856,  of  Childhood  and  Youth, 
remarkable  alike  for  its  artless  revelations  concern- 
ing the  genesis  and  growth  of  ideas  and  emotions  in 
the  minds  of  the  young,  for  its  idyllic  pictures  of 
domestic  life,  and  for  its  graceful  descriptions  of 
nature.  This  was  followed  by  The  Cossacks,  a 
'.vild  romance  of  the  steppes,  vigorously  realistic  in 
details,  and,  like  all  of  Count  Tolstoi's  works, 
poetic  in  conception  and  inspired  with  a  dramatic 
intensity.  In  1860  appeared  War  and  Peace,  an 
historical  romance  in  many  volumes,  dealing  with 
the  Napoleonic  invasion  of  1812  and  the  events  that 
immediately  followed  the  retreat  from  Moscow. 
According  to  M.  C.  Courriere,1  it  was  seized  upon 
with  avidity  and  produced  a  profound  sensation. 

"The  stage  is  immense  and  the  actors  aro  innu- 
merable ;    among   them   three    emperors  with  their 
ministers,  their  marshals,   and  their   generals,  and 
then    a    countless    retinue    of   minor    officers,    sol- 
1  Ilistoire  de  la  litterature  contemporaine  en  Russie. 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE.  V 

diers,  nobles,  and  peasants.  We  are  transported 
by  turns  from  the  salons  of  St.  Petersburg  to  the 
camps  of  war,  from  Moscow  to  the  country.  And 
all  these  diverse  and  varied  scenes  are  joined 
together  with  a  controlling  purpose  that  brings  every- 
thing into  harmony.  Each  one  of  the  prolonged 
series  of  constantly  changing  tableaux  is  of  remark- 
able beauty  and  palpitating  with  life." 

Pierre  Besushkof,  one  of  the  three  heroes  of  War 
and  Peace,  has,  rightly  or  wrongly,  long  been 
regarded  as  in  some  respects  an  autobiographical 
study,  but  the  personal  note  is  always  clearly  per- 
ceptible in  Count  Tolstoi's  writings,  if  we  are  to 
believe  the  reports  of  the  enthusiastic  purveyors  of 
literary  information  who  have  made  known  some  of 
their  many  attractive  qualities.  It  is  plain  also  that 
a  common  purpose  runs  through  them  all,  a  purpose 
'which  only  in  the  author's  latest  production  finds 
full  expression.  There  are  hints  of  it  in  Childhood 
and  Youth;  in  War  and  Peace,  and  in  a  subsequent 
romance,  Anna  Karenin,  it  becomes  very  distinct. 
In  the  two  works  last  named  Count  Tolstoi  is  piti- 
less in  his  portrayal  of  the  vices  and  follies  of  the 
wealthy,  aristocratic  class,  and  warm  in  his  praise  of 
simplicity  and  unpretending  virtue.  Pierre  Besush- 
kof is  represented  as  the  product  of  a  transition 
period,  one  who  sees  clearly  that  the  future  must  be 
different  from  the  past,  but  unable  to  interpret  the 
prophecies  of  its  coming.  M.  Courriere  speaks  of 
him  very  happily  as  "an  overgrown  child  who  seems 
to   be  lost  in  a  wholly  unfamiliar  world."     For  a 


Vi  TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE. 

time  Pierre  finds  mental  tranquillity  in  the  tenets  of 
freemasonry,  and  the  author  gives  us  a  vivid 
account,  humorous  and  pathetic  by  turns,  of  the 
young  man's  efforts  to  carry  the  newly  acquired  doc- 
trines into  practice.  He  determines  to  better  the 
condition  of  the  peasants  on  his  estates  ;  but  instead 
of  looking  after  the  affair  himself,  he  leaves  the  con- 
summation of  his  plans  to  his  stewards,  with  the 
result  that  "  the  cleverest  among  them  listened  with 
attention,  but  considered  one  thing  only,  —  how  to 
carry  out  their  own  private  ends  under  the  pretence 
of  executing  his  commands. "  Later  on  we  are 
shown  Pierre  wandering  aimlessly  about  the  streets 
of  burning  Moscow,  until  taken  into  custody  by  the 
French.  Then  he  learns  the  true  meaning  of  life 
from  a  simple  soldier,  a  fellow-prisoner,  and  thereby 
realizes  that  safety  for  the  future  is  to  be  obtained 
only  by  bringing  life  to  the  standard  of  rude  sim- 
plicity adopted  by  the  common  people,  by  recogniz- 
ing, in  act  as  well  as  in  deed,  the  brotherhood  of 
man. 

We  cannot  here  enter  into  the  question  as  to 
whether  this  mental  attitude,  by  no  means  unusual 
among  Russians  of  cultivation  and  liberality,  arises 
from  the  lack  of  social  gradation  between  the  noble 
and  the  peasant,  which  forces  the  social  philosopher 
of  rank  to  accept  an  existence  of  pure  worldliness 
and  empt}T  show,  or  to  adopt  the  primitive  aspira- 
tions and  humble  toil  of  the  tillers  of  the  soil.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  plain  that  Count  Tolstoi  sides  with 
the  latter.     The  doctrine  of  simplification  has  many 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE.  vii 

adherents  in  Russia,  and  when,  some  time  ago,  it 
was  announced  that  the  author  of  War  and  Peace 
had  retired  to  the  country  and  was  leading  a  life  of 
frugality  and  unaffected  toil  in  the  cultivation  of  his 
estates,  the  surprise  to  his  own  countrymen  could 
not  have  been  very  great.  In  this  book  he  tells  us 
how  the  decision  was  formed.  He  bases  his  conclu- 
sions on  a  direct  and  literal  interpretation  of  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  as  expressed  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount. 

The  interpretation  is  not  new  in  theory,  but  never 
before  has  it  been  carried  out  with  so  much  zeal,  so 
much  determination,  so  much  sincerity,  and,  granting 
the  premises,  with  logic  so  unanswerable,  as  in  this 
beautiful  confession  of  faith.  How  movingly  does 
he  depict  the  doubts  and  fears  of  the  searcher 
after  the  better  life ;  how  impressive  his  earnest 
inquiry  for  truth ;  how  inspiring  his  confidence  in 
the  natural  goodness,  as  opposed  to  the  natural 
depravity  of  man  ;  how  convincing  his  argument 
that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  simple,  practicable, 
and  conducive  to  the  highest  happiness ;  how  terri- 
fying his  enumeration  of  the  sufferings  of  "the 
martyrs  to  the  doctrine  of  the  world  "  ;  how  pitiless 
his  arraignment  of  the  Church  for  its  complacent 
indifference  to  the  welfare  of  humanity  here  in  this 
present  stage  of  existence  ;  how  sublime  his  proph- 
ecy of  the  golden  age  when  men  shall  dwell  together 
in  the  bonds  of  love,  and  sin  and  suffering  shall 
be  no  more  the  common  lot  of  mankind !  We  read, 
and  are  thrilled  with  a  divine  emotion ;  but  which 


Viii  TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE. 

of  us  is  willing  to  accept  the  truth  here  unfolded  as 
the  veritable  secret  of  life  ? 

Shall  we  take  seriously  this  eloquent  enuncia- 
tion of  faith  in  humility,  in  self-denial,  in  frater- 
nal love,  or  shall  we  regard  it  only  as  a  beautiful 
and  peaceful  phase  in  the  career  of  a  man  of  genius 
who,  after  the  storm  and  stress  of  a  life  of  sin  and 
suffering,  has  turned  back  to  the  ideals  of  youth 
and  innocence,  and  sought  to  make  them  once  more 
the  objects  of  desire?  Fanaticism,  do  you  say? 
Ah,  yes  ;  but  did  not  Jesus  and  his  disciples  prac- 
tise just  such  fanaticism  as  this?  Does  any  one 
deny  that  all  that  is  best  in  this  modern  world  (and 
there  is  so  much  of  the  best,  after  all) ,  that  all  that 
is  best  has  come  from  the  great  moral  impulse  gen- 
erated by  a  little  group  of  fanatics  in  an  obscure 
corner  of  Asia  eighteen  centuries  ago?  That  im- 
pulse we  still  feel,  in  spite  of  all  the  obstructions 
that  have  been  put  in  its  way  to  nullify  its  action; 
and  if  any  would  seek  for  strength  from  the  pri- 
mary source  of  power,  who  shall  say  him  nay? 
And  so  although  we  may  smile  at  the  artlessness  of 
this  Russian  evangelist  in  his  determination  to  find 
in  the  gospels  the  categorical  imperative  of  self- 
renunciation,  although  we  may  regard  with  wonder 
the  magnificent  audacity  of  his  exegetical  specula- 
tions, we  cannot  refuse  to  admire  a  faith  so  sincere, 
so  intense,  and,  in  many  respects,  so  elevating  and 

so  noble. 

HUNTINGTON  SMITH. 

Dorchester,  Mass., 
Nov.  19, 1885. 


USTTEODUOTIOH". 


r  HAVE  not  always  been  possessed  of  the  religious 
ideas  set  forth  in  this  book.  For  thirty-five 
years  of  my  life  I  was,  in  the  proper  acceptation  of 
the  word,  a  nihilist, — not  a  revolutionary  socialist, 
but  a  man  who  believed  in  nothing.  Five  years 
ago  faith  came  to  me  ;  I  believed  in  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  and  my  whole  life  underwent  a  sudden  trans- 
formation. What  I  had  once  wished  for  I  wished 
for.  no  longer,  and  I  began  to  desire  what  I  had 
never  desired  before.  What  had  once  appeared  to 
me  right  now  became  wrong,  and  the  wrong  of  the 
past  I  beheld  as  right.  My  condition  was  like  that 
of  a  man  who  goes  forth  upon  some  errand,  and 
having  traversed  a  portion  of  the  road,  decides  that 
the  matter  is  of  no  importance,  and  turns  back. 
What  was  at  first  on  his  right  hand  is  now  on  his 
left,  and  what  was  at  his  left  hand  is  now  on  his 
right ;  instead  of  going  awa}r  from  his  abodle,  he 
desires  to  get  back  to  it  as  soon  as  possible.  My 
life  and  my  desires  were  completely  changed  ;  good 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

and  evil  interchanged  meanings.  Why  so?  Because 
I  understood  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  in  a  different  way 
from  that  in  which  I  had  understood  it  before. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  expound  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus ;  I  wish  only  to  tell  how  it  was  that  I  came 
to  understand  what  there  is  in  this  doctrine  that  is 
simple,  clear,  evident,  indisputable ;  how  I  under- 
stand that  part  of  it  which  appeals  to  all  men,  and 
how  this  understanding  refreshed  my  soul  and  gave 
\ne  happiness  and  peace. 

I  do  not  intend  to  comment  on  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus ;  I  desire  only  that  all  comment  shall  be 
forever  done  away  with.  The  Christian  sects  have 
alwa}-s  maintained  that  all  men,  however  unequal  in 
education  and  intelligence,  are  equal  before  God ; 
that  divine  truth  is  accessible  to  every  one.  Jesus 
has  even  declared  it  to  be  the  will  of  God  that  what 
is  concealed  from  the  wise  shall  be  revealed  to  the 
simple.  Not  every  one  is  able  to  understand  the 
mysteries  of  dogmatics,  homiletics,  liturgies,  her- 
meneutics,  apologetics ;  but  every  one  is  able  and 
ought  to  understand  what  Jesus  Christ  said  to  the 
millions  of  simple  and  ignorant  people  who  have 
livedf  and  who  are  living  to-day.  Now,  the  things 
that  Jesus  said  to  simple  people  who  could  not  avail 
themselves  of  the  comments  of  Paul,  of  Clement,  of 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

Chrysostom,  and  of  others,  are  just  what  I  did  not 
understand,  and  which,  now  that  I  have  come  to 
understand  them,  I  wish  to  make  plain  to  all. 

The  thief  on  the  cross  believed  in  the  Christ,  and 
was  saved.  If  the  thief,  instead  of  dying  on  the 
cross,  had  descended  from  it,  and  told  all  men  of 
his  belief  in  the  Christ,  would  not  the  result  have 
been  of  great  good?  Like  the  thief  on  the  cross,  I 
believe  in  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  and  this  belief  has 
made  me  whole.  This  is  not  a  vain  comparison, 
but  a  truthful  expression  of  my  spiritual  condition  ; 
my  soul,  once  filled  with  despair  of  life  and  fear  of 
death,  is  now  full  of  happiness  and  peace. 

Like  the  thief,  I  knew  that  my  past  and  present 
life  was  vile  ;  I  saw  that  the  majority  of  men  about 
me  lived  unworthy  lives.  I  knew,  like  the  thief, 
that  I  was  wretched  and  suffering,  that  all  those 
about  me  suffered  and  were  wretched ;  and  I  saw 
before  me  nothing  but  death  to  save  me  from  this 
condition.  As  the  thief  was  nailed  to  his  cross,  so 
I  was  nailed  to  a  life  of  suffering  and  evil  by  an  in- 
comprehensible power.  And  as  the  thief  saw  before 
him,  after  the  sufferings  of  a  foolish  life,  the  horrible 
shadows  of  death,  so  I  beheld  the  same  vista  open- 
ing before  me. 

In  all  this  I  felt  that  I  was  like  the  thief.     There 


Xll  INTRODUCTION. 

was,  however,  a  difference  in  our  conditions ;  he 
was  about  to  die,  and  I  —  I  still  lived.  The  dying 
thief  thought  perhaps  to  find  his  salvation  beyond 
the  grave,  while  I  had  before  me  life  and  its  mystery 
this  side  the  grave.  I  understood  nothing  of  this 
life  ;  it  seemed  to  me  a  frightful  thing,  and  then  — 
I  understood  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  life  and  death 
ceased  to  be  evil ;  instead  of  despair,  I  tasted  joy 
and  happiness  that  death  could  not  take  away. 

Will   any  one,    then,    be  offended   if   I   tell   the 
story  of  how  all  this  came  about? 

LEO  TOLSTOI. 

Moscow,  Jan.  22,  1884. 


MY   RELIGION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

I  SHALL  explain  elsewhere,  in  two  voluminous 
treatises,  why  I  did  not  understand  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  and  how  at  length  it  became  clear  to  me. 
These  works  are  a  criticism  of  dogmatic  theology 
and  a  new  translation  of  the  four  Gospels,  followed 
by  a  concordance.  In  these  writings  I  seek  methodi- 
cally to  disentangle  everything  that  tends  to  conceal 
the  truth  from  men  ;  I  translate  the  four  Gospels 
anew,  verse  by  verse,  and  I  bring  them  together  in 
a  new  concordance.  The  work  has  lasted  for  six 
years.  Each  year,  each  month,  I  discover  new 
meanings  which  corroborate  the  fundamental  idea ; 
I  correct  the  errors  which  have  crept  in,  and  I  put 
the  last  touches  to  what  I  have  already  written. 
My  life,  whose  final  term  is  not  far  distant,  will 
doubtless  end  before  I  have  finished  my  work  ;  but 
I  am  convinced  that  the  work  will  be  of  great  service  ; 
so  I  shall  do  all  that  I  can  to  bring  it  to  completion. 
I  do  not  now  concern  myself  with  this  outward 
work  upon  theology  and  the  Gospels,  but  with  an 
inner  work  of  an  entirely  different  nature.  I  have 
to  do  now  with  nothing  systematic  or  methodical, 


2  MY  RELIGION. 

only  with  that  sudden  light  which  showed  me  the 
Gospel  doctrine  in  all  its  simple  beauty. 

The  process  was  something  similar  to  that  experi- 
enced by  one  who,  following  an  erroneous  model, 
seeks  to  restore  a  statue  from  broken  bits  of  marble, 
and  who  with  one  of  the  most  refractory  fragments 
in  hand  perceives  the  hopelessness  of  his  ideal ;  then 
he  begins  anew,  and  instead  of  the  former  incon- 
gruities he  finds,  as  he  observes  the  outlines  of  each 
fragment,  that  all  fit  well  together  and  form  one 
consistent  whole.  That  is  exactly  what  happened 
to  me,  and  is  what  I  wish  to  relate.  I  wish  to  tell 
how  I  found  the  key  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus,  and  how  by  this  meaning  doubt  was 
absolutely  driven  from  my  soul.  The  discovery 
came  about  in  this  way. 

From  my  childhood,  from  the  time  I  first  began 
to  read  the  New  Testament,  I  was  touched  most  of 
all  by  that  portion  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  which 
inculcates  love,  humility,  self-denial,  and  the  duty 
of  returning  good  for  evil.  This,  to  me,  has  always 
been  the  substance  of  Christianity  ;  my  heart  recog- 
nized its  truth  in  spite  of  scepticism  and  despair, 
and  for  this  reason  I  submitted  to  a  religion  pro- 
fessed by  a  multitude  of  toilers,  who  find  in  it  the 
solution  of  life,  —  the  religion  taught  by  the  Ortho- 
dox Church.  But  in  making  my  submission  to  the 
Church,  I  soon  saw  that  I  should  not  find  in  its 
creed  the  confirmation  of  the  essence  of  Christianity  ; 
what  was  to  me  essential  seemed  to  be  in  the  dogma 
of  the  Church  merely  an  accessory.     What  was  to 


MY  RELIGION.  3 

me  the  most  important  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
was  not  so  regarded  by  the  Church.  No  doubt 
(I  thought)  the  Church  sees  in  Christianity,  aside 
from  its  inner  meaning  of  love,  humilit}*,  and  self- 
denial,  an  outer,  dogmatic  meaning,  which,  however 
strange  and  even  repulsive  to  me,  is  not  in  itself 
evil  or  pernicious.  But  the  further  I  went  on  in  sub- 
mission to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  the  more 
clearly  I  saw  in  this  particular  point  something  of 
greater  importance  than  I  had  at  first  realized. 
What  I  found  most  repulsive  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  was  the  strangeness  of  its  dogmas  and  the 
approval,  nay,  the  support,  which  it  gave  to  perse- 
cutions, to  the  death  penalty,  to  wars  stirred  up  by 
the  intolerance  common  to  all  sects ;  but  my  faith 
was  chiefly  shattered  by  the  indifference  of  the 
Church  to  what  seemed  to  me  essential  in  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus,  and  by  its  avidity  for  what  seemed  to 
me  of  secondary  importance.  I  felt  that  something 
was  wrong  ;  but  I  could  not  see  where  the  fault  la}*, 
because  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  did  not  deny 
what  seemed  to  me  essential  in  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus ;  this  essential  was  fully  recognized,  yet  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  give  it  the  first  place.  I  could 
not  accuse  the  Church  of  denying  the  essence  of  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  but  it  was  recognized  in  a  way 
which  did  not  satisfy  me.  The  Church  did  not  give 
me  what  I  expected  from  her.  I  had  passed  from 
nihilism  to  the  Church  simply  because  I  felt  it  to  be 
impossible  to  live  without  religion,  that  is,  without 
a  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  beyond  the  animal 


4  MY  RELIGION. 

instincts.  I  hoped  to  find  this  knowledge  in  Chris- 
tianity ;  but  Christianity  I  then  saw  only  as  a  vague 
spiritual  tendency,  from  which  it  was  impossible  to 
deduce  any  clear  and  peremptory  rules  for  the  guid- 
ance of  life.  These  I  sought  and  these  I  demanded 
of  the  Church.  The  Church  offered  me  rules  which 
not  only  did  not  inculcate  the  practice  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  but  which  made  such  practice  still  more 
difficult.  I  could  not  become  a  disciple  of  the 
Church.  An  existence  based  upon  Christian  truth 
was  to  me  indispensable,  and  the  Church  only  of- 
fered me  rules  completely  at  variance  with  the  truth 
that  I  loved.  The  rules  of  the  Church  touching 
articles  of  faith,  dogmas,  the  observance  of  the  sac- 
rament, fasts,  prayers,  were  not  necessary  to  me, 
and  did  not  seem  to  be  based  on  Christian  truth. 
Moreover,  the  rules  of  the  Church  weakened  and 
sometimes  destroyed  the  desire  for  Christian  truth 
which  alone  gave  meaning  to  my  life. 

I  was  troubled  most  that  the  miseries  of  human- 
ity, the  habit  of  judging  one  another,  of  passing 
judgment  upon  nations  and  religions,  and  the  wars 
and  massacres  which  resulted  in  consequence,  all 
went  on  with  the  approbation  of  the  Church.  The 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  —  judge  not,  be  humble,  forgive 
offences,  deny  self,  love,  —  this  doctrine  was  ex- 
tolled by  the  Church  in  words,  but  at  the  same  time 
the  Church  approved  what  was  incompatible  with 
the  doctrine.  Was  it  possible  that  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  admitted  of  such  contradiction?  I  could  not 
believe  so. 


my  religion:  5 

Another  astonishing  thing  about  the  Church  was 
.  that  the  passages  upon  which  it  based  affirmation  of 
its  dogmas  were  those  which  were  most  obscure. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  passages  from  which  came 
the  moral  laws  were  the  most  clear  and  precise. 
And  yet  the  dogmas  and  the  duties  depending  upon 
them  were  definitely  formulated  by  the  Church,  while 
the  recommendation  to  obey  the  moral  law  was  put 
in  the  most  vague  and  mystical  terms.  Was  this 
the  intention  of  Jesus?  The  Gospels  alone  could 
dissipate  my  doubts.     I  read  them  once  and  again. 

Of  all  the  other  portions  of  the  Gospels,  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  always  had  for  me  an  exceptional 
importance.  I  now  read  it  more  frequently  than 
ever.  Nowhere  does  Jesus  speak  with  greater  so- 
lemnity, nowhere  does  he  propound  moral  rules  more 
definitely  and  practically,  nor  do  these  rules  in  any 
other  form  awaken  more  readily  an  echo  in  the 
human  heart ;  nowhere  else  does  he  address  himself 
to  a  larger  multitude  of  the  common  people.  If 
there  are  any  clear  and  precise  Christian  principles, 
one  ought  to  find  them  here.  I  therefore  sought  the 
solution  of  my  doubts  in  Matthew  v.,  vi.,  and  vii., 
comprising  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  These  chap- 
ters I  read  very  often,  each  time  with  the  same  emo- 
tional ardor,  as  I  came  to  the  verses  which  exhort 
the  hearer  to  turn  the  other  cheek,  to  give  up  his 
cloak,  to  be  at  peace  with  all  the  world,  to  love  his 
enemies,  —  but  each  time  with  the  same  disappoint- 
ment. The  divine  words  were  not  clear.  They 
exhorted  to  a  renunciation  so  absolute  as  to  entirely 


6  MY  RELIGION. 

stifle  life  as  I  understood  it;  to  renounce  everything, 
therefore,  could  not,  it  seemed  to  me,  be  essential 
to  salvation.  And  the  moment  this  ceased  to  be  an 
absolute  condition,  clearness  and  precision  were  at 
an  end. 

I  read  not  only  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  I  read 
all  the  Gospels  and  all  the  theological  commentaries 
on  the  Gospels.  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  decla- 
rations of  the  theologians  that  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  was  only  an  indication  of  the  degree  of  per- 
fection to  which  man  should  aspire ;  that  man, 
weighed  down  by  sin,  could  not  reach  such  an  ideal ; 
and  that  the  salvation  of  humanity  was  in  faith  and 
prayer  and  grace.  I  could  not  admit  the  truth  of 
these  propositions.  It  seemed  to  me  a  strange  thing 
that  Jesus  should  propound  rules  so  clear  and  admi- 
rable, addressed  to  the  understanding  of  every  one, 
and  still  realize  man's  inability  to  carry  his  doctrine 
into  practice. 

Then  as  I  read  these  maxims  I  was  permeated 
with  the  joyous  assurance  that  I  might  that  very 
hour,  that  very  moment,  begin  to  practise  them. 
The  burning  desire  I  felt  led  me  to  the  attempt,  but 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  rang  in  my  ears,  —  Man 
is  weak,  and  to  this  lie  cannot  attain  ;  —  my  strength 
soon  failed.  On  every  side  I  heard,  "  You  must 
believe  and  pray  "  ;  but  my  wavering  faith  impeded 
pra}-er.  Again  I  heard,  "You  must  pray,  and  God 
will  give  you  faith  ;  this  faith  will  inspire  prayer, 
which  in  turn  will  invoke  faith  that  will  inspire  more 
prayer,  and  so  on,  indefinitely."     Reason  and  ex- 


MY  RELIGION.  1 

perience  alike  convinced  me  that  snch  methods 
were  useless.  It  seemed  to  me  that  the  only  true 
way  was  for  me  to  try  to  follow  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus. 

And  so,  after  all  this  fruitless  search  and  careful 
meditation  over  all  that  had  been  written  for  and 
against  the  divinity  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  after 
all  this  doubt  and  suffering,  I  came  back  face  to 
face  with  the  mysterious  Gospel  message.  I  could 
not  find  the  meanings  that  others  found,  neither 
could  I  discover  what  I  sought.  It  was  only  after 
I  had  rejected  the  interpretations  of  the  wise  critics 
and  theologians,  according  to  the  words  of  Jesus, 
"Except  ye  .  .  .  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven*'  (Matt,  xviii.  3) , — 
it  was  only  then  that  I  suddenly  understood  what 
had  been  so  meaningless  before.  I  understood,  not 
through  exegetical  fantasies  or  profound  and  ingen- 
ious textual  combinations  ;  I  understood  everything, 
because  I  put  all  commentaries  out  of  my  mind. 
This  was  the  passage  that  gave  me  the  key  to  the 
whole  :  — 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for 
an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth :  But  I  say  unto  you, 
That  ye  resist  not  evil:*      (Matt.  v.  38,  39.) 

One  day  the  exact  and  simple  meaning  of  these 
words  came  to  me  ;  I  understood  that  Jesus  meant 
neither  more  nor  less  than  what  he  said.  What  I 
saw  was  nothing  new  ;  only  the  veil  that  had  hidden 
the  truth  from  me  fell  away,  and  the  truth  was  re- 
vealed in  all  its  grandeur. 


8  MY  RELIGION. 

'*  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for 
an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth:  But  I  say  unto  you, 
That  ye  resist  not  evil." 

These  words  suddenly  appeared  to  me  as. if  I  had 
never  read  them  before.  Always  before,  when  I  had 
read  this  passage,  I  had,  singularly  enough,  allowed 
certain  words  to  escape  me,  "But  I  say  unto  you, 
that  ye  resist  not  evil."  To  me  it  had  always  been 
as  if  the  words  just  quoted  had  never  existed,  or  had 
never  possessed  a  definite  meaning.  Later  on,  as  I 
talked  with  many  Christians  familiar  with  the  Gos- 
pel, I  noticed  frequently  the  same  blindness  with 
regard  to  these  words.  No  one  remembered  them, 
and  often  in  speaking  of  this  passage,  Christians 
took  up  the  Gospel  to  see  for  themselves  if  the  words 
were  really  there.  Through  a  similar  neglect  of 
these  words  I  had  failed  to  understand  the  words 
that  follow :  — 

' '  But  whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek, 
turn  to  him  the  other  also,"  etc.  (Matt.  v.  39,  et 
seq.) 

Always  these  words  had  seemed  to  me  to  demand 
long-suffering  and  privation  contrary  to  human 
nature.  They  touched  me  ;  I  felt  that  it  would  be 
noble  to  follow  them,  but  I  also  felt  that  I  had  not 
the  strength  to  put  them  into  practice.  I  said  to 
myself,  "If  I  turn  the  other  cheek,  I  shall  get 
another  blow  ;  if  I  give,  all  that  I  have  will  be  taken 
away.  Life  would  be  an  impossibility.  Since  life 
is  given  to  me,  why  should  I  deprive  myself  of  it? 


MY  RELIGION.  9 

Jesus  cannot  demand  as  much  as  that."  Thus  I 
reasoned,  persuaded  that  Jesus,  in  exalting  long- 
suffering  and  privation,  made  use  of  exaggerated 
terms  lacking  in  clearness  and  precision  ;  but  when 
I  understood  the  words  "  Resist  not  evil"  I  saw  that 
Jesus  did  not  exaggerate,  that  he  did  not  demand 
suffering  for  suffering,  but  that  he  had  formulated 
with  great  clearness  and  precision  exactly  what  he 
wished  to  say. 

"  Resist  not  evil"  knowing  that  you  will  meet 
with  those  who,  when  they  have  struck  you  on  one 
cheek  and  met  with  no  resistance,  will  strike  you  on 
the  other ;  who,  having  taken  away  your  coat,  will 
take  away  your  cloak  also ;  who,  having  profited 
b}*  your  labor,  will  force  you  to  labor  still  more 
without  reward.  And  yet,  though  all  this  should 
happen  to  you,  "  Resist  not  evil" ;  do  good  to  them 
that  injure  you.  When  I  understood  these  words  as 
they  are  written,  all  that  had  been  obscure  became 
clear  to  me,  and  what  had  seemed  exaggerated  I 
saw  to  be  perfectly  reasonable.  For  the  first  time  I 
grasped  the  pivotal  idea  in  the  words  "  Resist  not 
evil" ;  I  saw  that  what  followed  was  only  a  devel- 
opment of  this  command  ;  I  saw  that  Jesus  did  not 
exhort  us  to  turn  the  other  cheek  that  we  might 
endure  suffering,  but  that  his  exhortation  was, 
"Resist  not  evil ,"  and  that  he  afterward  declared 
suffering  to  be  the  possible  consequence  of  the  prac- 
tice of  this  maxim. 

A  father,  when  his  son  is  about  to  set  out  on  a 


10  MY  RELIGION. 

far  journey,  commands  him  not  to  tarry  by  the 
way  ;  he  does  not  tell  him  to  pass  his  nights  without 
shelter,  to  deprive  himself  of  food,  to  expose  him- 
self to  rain  and  cold.  He  says,  "  Go  thy  way,  and 
tarry  not,  though  thou  should'st  be  wet  or  cold." 
So  Jesus  does  not  say,  "Turn  the  other  cheek  and 
suffer."  He  says,  "Resist  not  evil "  ;  no  matter  what 
happens,  "  Resist  not.*' 

These  words,  "Resist  not  evil"  when  I  under- 
stood their  significance,  were  to  me  the  key  that 
opened  all  the  rest.  Then  I  was  astonished  ,that 
I  had  failed  to  comprehend  words  so  clear  and 
precise. 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for 
an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth:  But  I  say  unto  you, 
That  ye  resist  not  evil." 

Whatever  injury  the  evil-disposed  may  inflict  upon 
yon,' bear  it,  give  all  that  you  have,  but  resist  not. 
Could  anything  be  more  clear,  more  definite,  more 
intelligible  than  that  ?  I  had  only  to  grasp  the  sim- 
ple and  exact  meaning  of  these  words,  just  as  they 
were  spoken,  when  the  whole  doctrine  of  Jesus,  not 
only  as  set  forth  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  but 
in  the  entire  Gospels,  became  clear  to  me  ;  what 
had  seemed  contradictory  was  now  in  harmony ; 
above  all,  what  had  seemed  superfluous  was  now 
indispensable.  Each  portion  fell  into  harmonious 
unison  and  filled  its  proper  part,  like  the  fragments 
of  a  broken  statue  when  adjusted  in  harmony  with 
the  sculptor's  design.    In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 


MY  RELIGION.  11 

as  well  as  throughout  the  whole  Gospel,  I  found 
everywhere  affirmation  of  the  same  doctrine,  "  i2e- 
sist  not  evil." 

In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  as  well  as  in  many 
other  places,  Jesus  represents  his  disciples,  those 
who  observe  the  rule  of  non-resistance  to  evil,  as 
turning  the  other  cheek,  giving  up  their  cloaks,  per- 
secuted, used  despitef ulry,  and  in  want.  Everywhere 
Jesus  says  that  he  who  taketh  not  up  his  cross,  he 
who  does  not  renounce  worldly  advantage,  he  who 
is  not  ready  to  bear  all  the  consequences  of  the  com- 
mandment, "Resist  not  evil"  cannot  become  his 
disciple. 

To  his  disciples  Jesus  says,  Choose  to  be  poor ; 
bear  all  things  without  resistance  to  evil,  even 
though  you  thereb}'  bring  upon  yourself  persecution, 
suffering,  and  death. 

Prepared  to  suffer  death  rather  than  resist  evil,  he 
reproved  the  resentment  of  Peter,  and  died  exhort- 
ing his  followers  not  to  resist  and  to  remain  always 
faithful  to  his  doctrine.  The  early  disciples  ob- 
served this  rule,  and  passed  their  lives  in  misery  and 
persecution,  without  rendering  evil  for  evil. 

It  seems,  then,  that  Jesus  meant  precisely  what 
he  said.  We  may  declare  the  practice  of  such  a 
rule  to  be  very  difficult ;  we  may  deny  that  he  who 
follows  it  will  find  happiness  ;  we  may  say  with  the 
unbelievers  that  Jesus  was  a  dreamer,  an  idealist 
who  propounded  impracticable  maxims  ;  but  it  is 
impossible  not  to  admit  that  he  expressed  in  a  man- 


12  MY  RELIGION. 

ner  at  once  clear  and  precise  what  he  wished  to  say  ; 
that  is,  that  according  to  his  doctrine  a  man  must 
not  resist  evil,  and,  consequently,  that  whoever 
adopts  his  doctrine  will  not  resist  evil.  And  yet 
neither  believers  nor  unbelievers  will  admit  this 
simple  and  clear  interpretation  of  Jesus'  words. 


CHAPTER  II. 

WHEN  I  apprehended  clearly  the  words  "Re- 
sist not  evil,"  my  conception  of  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  was  entirely  changed  ;  and  I  was  astounded, 
not  that  I  had  failed  to  understand  it  before,  but 
that  I  had  misunderstood  it  so  strangely.  I  knew, 
as  we  all  know,  that  the  true  significance  of  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  was  comprised  in  the  injunction  to 
love  one's  neighbor.  When  we  say,  "  Turn  the 
other  cheek ,"  "  Love  your  enemies"  we  express  the 
very  essence  of  Christianity.  I  knew  all  that  from 
my  childhood ;  but  why  had  I  failed  to  understand 
aright  these  simple  words?  Why  had  I  alwa3*s 
sought  for  some  ulterior  meaning?  "Resist  not 
evil"  means,  never  resist,  never  oppose  violence; 
or,  in  other  words,  never  do  anything  contrary  to 
the  law  of  love.  If  any  one  takes  advantage  of  this 
disposition  and  affronts  you,  bear  the  affront,  and 
do  not,  above  all,  have  recourse  to  violence.  This 
Jesus  said  in  words  so  clear  and  simple  that  it 
would  be  impossible  to  express  the  idea  more  clearry. 
How  was  it  then,  that  believing  or  trying  to  believe 
these  to  be  the  words  of  God,  I  still  maintained  the 
impossibility  of  obeying  them?  If  my  master  says 
to  me,  "  Go ;  cut  some  wood,"  and  I  reply,  "It  is 
beyond  my  strength,"  I  say  one  of  two  things : 
either  I  do  not  believe  what  my  master  says,  or  I  do 


14  MY  RELIGION. 

not  wish  to  obey  his  commands.  Should  I  then  say 
of  God's  commandment  that  I  could  not  obey  it 
without  the  aid  of  a  supernatural  power  ?  Should  I 
say  this  without  having  made  the  slightest  effort  of 
my  own  to  obey?  We  are  told  that  God  descended 
to  earth  to  save  mankind ;  that  salvation  was 
secured  by  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  who 
suffered  for  men,  thereby  redeeming  them  from  sin, 
and  gave  them  the  Church  as  the  shrine  for  the 
transmission  of  grace  to  all  believers  ;  but  aside 
from  this,  the  Saviour  gave  to  men  a  doctrine  and 
the  example  of  his  own  life  for  their  salvation. 
How,  then,  could  I  say  that  the  rules  of  life  which 
Jesus  has  formulated  so  clearly  and  simply  for  every 
one  —  how  could  I  say  that  these  rules  were  difficult 
to  obey,  that  it  was  impossible  to  obey  them  without 
the  assistance  of  a  supernatural  power?  Jesus  saw 
no  such  impossibility ;  he  distinctly  declared  that 
those  who  did  not  obey  could  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Nowhere  did  he  say  that  obedi- 
ence would  be  difficult ;  on  the  contrary,  he  said  in 
so  many  words,  "  My  yoke  is  easy  and  my  burden  is 
light"  (Matt.  xi.  30).  And  John,  the  evangelist, 
says,  "His  commandments  are  not  grievous" 
(1  John  v.  3).  Since  God  declared  the  practice  of 
his  law  to  be  easy,  and  himself  practised  it  in  human 
form,  as  did  also  his  disciples,  how  dared  I  speak  of 
the' impossibility  of  obedience  without  the  aid  of  a 
supernatural  power? 

If  one  bent  all  his  energies  to  overthrow  any  law, 
what  could  he  say  of  greater  force  than  that  the  law 


MY  RELIGION.  15 

was  essentially  impracticable,  and  that  the  maker  of 
the  law  knew  it  to  be  impracticable  and  unattainable 
without  the  aid  of  a  supernatural  power?  Yet  that 
is  exactly  what  I  had  been  thinking  of  the  com- 
mand, "  Resist  not  evil."  I  endeavored  to  find  out 
how  it  was  that  I  got  the  idea  that  Jesus*  law  was 
divine,  but  that  it  could  not  be  obeyed ;  and  as  I 
reviewed  my  past  history,  I  perceived  that  the  idea 
had  not  been  communicated  to  me  in  all  its  crucle- 
ness  (it  would  then  have  been  revolting  to  me) ,  but 
insensibly  I  had  been  imbued  with  it  from  childhood, 
and  all  my  after  life  had  only  continued  me  in  error. 
From  my  childhood  I  had  been  taught  that  Jesus 
was  God,  and  that  his  doctrine  was  divine,  but  at  the 
same  time  I  was  taught  to  respect  as  sacred  the 
institutions  which  protected  me  from  violence  and 
evil.  I  was  taught  to  resist  evil,  that  it  was  humili- 
ating to  submit  to  evil,  and  that  resistance  to  it  was 
praiseworthy.  I  was  taught  to  judge,  and  to  inflict 
punishment.  Then  I  was  taught  the  soldier's  trade, 
that  is,  to  resist  evil  by  homicide  ;  the  army  to 
which  I  belonged  was  called  "The  Christophile 
Arm},"  and  it  was  sent  forth  with  a  Christian  bene- 
diction. From  infancy  to  manhood  I  learned  to 
venerate  things  that  were  in  direct  contradiction  to 
the  law  of  Jesus,  —  to  meet  an  aggressor  with  his 
own  weapons,  to  avenge  myself  by  violence  for  all 
offences  against  my  person,  my  family,  or  my  race. 
Not  only  was  I  not  blamed  for  this ;  I  learned  to 
regard  it  as  not  at  all  contran'  to  the  law  of  Jesus. 
All  that  surrounded  me,  my  personal  security  and 


16  MY  RELIGION. 

that  of  my  family  and  my  property — depended  then 
upon  a  law  which  Jesus  reproved,  —  the  law  of  "  a 
tooth  for  a  tooth."  My  spiritual  instructors  taught 
me  that  the  law  of  Jesus  was  divine,  but,  because 
of  human  weakness,  impossible  of  practice,  and  that 
the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ  alone  could  aid  us  to  fol- 
low its  precepts.  And  this  instruction  agreed  with 
what  I  received  in  secular  institutions  and  from  the 
social  organization  about  me.  I  was  so  thoroughly 
possessed  with  this  idea  of  the  impracticability  of 
the  divine  doctrine,  the  idea  conformed  so  well  with 
my  desires,  that  not  till  the  time  of  awakening  did  I 
realize  its  falsity.  I  did  not  see  how  impossible  it 
was  to  confess  Jesus  and  his  doctrine,  "  Resist  not 
evil,"  and  at  the  same  time  deliberately  assist  in  the 
organization  of  property,  of  tribunals,  of  govern- 
ments, of  armies ;  to  contribute  to  the  establish- 
ment of  a  polity  entirely  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  and  at  the  same  time  pray  to  Jesus  to  help  us 
to  obey  his  commands,  to  forgive  our  sins,  and  to 
aid  us  that  we  resist  not  evil.  I  did  not  see,  what  is 
very  clear  to  me  now,  how  much  more  simple  it 
would  be  to  organize  a  method  of  living  conformable 
to  the  law  of  Jesus,  and  then  to  pray  for  tribunals, 
and  massacres,  and  wars,  if  these  things  were  indis- 
pensable to  our  happiness. 

Thus  I  came  to  understand  the   source  of  error 
into  which  I  had  fallen.     I  had  confessed  Jesus  with  v> 
my  lips,  but  my  heart  was  still  far  from  him.     The/ 
command,  "  Resist  not  evil"  is  the  central  point  of 
Jesus'  doctrine  ;  it  is  not  a  mere  verbal  affirmation  j 


MY  RELIGION.  17 

it  is  a  rule  whose  practice  is  obligatory.  It  is  verily 
the  key  to  the  whole  mystery  ;  but  the  key  must  be 
thrust  to  the  bottom  of  the  lock.  When  we  regard 
it  as  a  command  impossible  of  performance,  the 
value  of  the  entire  doctrine  is  lost.  Why  should 
not  a  doctrine  seem  impracticable,  when  we  have 
suppressed  its  fundamental  proposition?  It  is  not 
strange  that  unbelievers  look  upon  it  as  totally  ab- 
surd. When  we  declare  that  one  may  be  a  Christian 
without  observing  the  commandment,  "  Resist  not 
evil"  we  simply  leave  out  the  connecting  link  which 
transmits  the  force  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  into 
action. 

Some  time  ago  I  was  reading  in  Hebrew,  the  fifth 
chapter  of  Matthew  with  a  Jewish  rabbi.  At  nearly 
evety  verse  the  rabbi  said,  'k  This  is  in  the  Bible," 
or  "This  is  in  the  Talmud,"  and  he  showed  me  in 
the  Bible  and  in  the  Talmud  sentences  very  like  the 
declarations  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  When 
we  reached  the  words,  "  Resist  not  evil"  the  rabbi 
did  not  say,  "  This  is  in  the  Talmud,"  but  he  asked 
me,  with  a  smile,  "  Do  the  Christians  obey  this 
command  ?  Do  they  turn  the  other  cheek  ?  "  I  had 
nothing  to  say  in  reply,  especially  as  at  that  par- 
ticular time,  Christians,  far  from  turning  the  other 
cheek,  were  smiting  the  Jews  upon  both  cheeks. 
I  asked  him  if  there  were  anything  similar  in  the 
Bible  or  in  the  Talmud.  "  No,"  he  replied,  "  there 
is  nothing  like  it ;  but  tell  me,  do  the  Christians 
obe}'  this  law?  "  It  was  only  another  way  of  saying, 
that  the  presence  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  a  com-' 


18  MY  RELIGION. 

mandment  which  no  one  observed,  and  which  Chris- 
tians themselves  regarded  as  impracticable,  is  simply 
an  avowal  of  the  foolishness  and  nullity  of  that  law. 
I  could  say  nothing  in  reply  to  the  rabbi.    \ 

Now  that  I  understand  the  exact  meaning  of  the 
doctrine,  I  see  clearly  the  strangely  contradictory 
position  in  which  I  was  placed.  Having  recognized 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  and  of  his  doctrine,  and  having 
at  the  same  time  organized  a  life  wholty  contrary  to 
that  doctrine,  what  remained  for  me  but  to  look 
upon  the  doctrine  as  impracticable  ?  In  words  I  had! 
recognized  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  sacred ;  in 
actions,  I  had  professed  a  doctrine  not  at  all  Chris- 
tian, and  I  had  recognized  and  reverenced  the  anti- 
Christian  customs  which  hampered  my  life  upon 
every  side.  The  persistent  message  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  that  misfortunes  came  upon  the  Hebrew 
people  because  the}T  believed  in  false  gods  and 
denied  Jehovah.  Samuel  (I.  viii. -xii.)  accuses 
the  people  of  adding  to  their  other  apostasies  the 
choice  of  a  man,  upon  whom  the}'  depended  for 
deliverance  instead  of  upon  Jehovah,  who  was  their 
true  King.  "  Turn  not  aside  after  tohu,  after  vain 
things,"  Samuel  says  to  the  people  (I.  xii.  21)  ; 
"  turn  not  aside  after  vain  things,  which  cannot 
profit  nor  deliver;  for  they  are  toJiu,  are  vain." 
t;  Fear  Jehovah  and  serve  him.  .  .  .  But  if  ye  shall 
still  do  wickedly,  ye  shall  be  consumed,  both  ye 
and  your  king"  (I.  xii.  24,  25).  And  so  with 
me,  faith  in  tohu,  in  vain  things,  in  empty  idols,  had 
concealed    the   truth   from   me.     Across   the   path 


MY  RELIGION.  19 

which  led  to  the  truth,  tohu,  the  idol  of  vain  things, 
rose  before  me,  cutting  off  the  light,  and  I  had  not 
the  strength  to  beat  it  down. 

On  a  certain  day,  at  this  time,  I  was  walking  in 
Moscow  towards  the  Borovitzky  Gate,  where  was 
stationed  an  old  lame  beggar,  with  a  dirty  cloth 
wrapped  about  his  head.  I  took  out  nry  purse  to 
bestow  an  alms ;  but  at  the  same  moment  I  saw  a 
young  soldier  emerging  from  the  Kremlin  at  a  rapid 
pace,  head  well  up,  red  of  face,  wearing  the  State 
insignia  of  military  dignity.  The  beggar,  on  per- 
ceiving the  soldier,  arose  in  fear,  and  ran  with  all  his 
might  towards  the  Alexander  Garden.  The  soldier, 
after  a  vain  attempt  to  come  up  with  the  fugitive, 
stopped,  shouting  forth  an  imprecation  upon  the 
poor  wretch  who  had  established  himself  under  the 
gateway  contrary  to  regulations.  I  waited  for 
the  soldier.  When  he  approached  me,  I  asked  him 
if  he  knew  how  to  read. 

"  Yes  ;  why  do  you  ask?" 

"  Have  you  read  the  New  Testament?" 

"Yes." 

"And  do  you  remember  the  words,  'If  thine 
enemy  hunger,  feed  him.  .  .'?" 

I  repeated  the  passage.  He  remembered  it,  and 
heard  me  to  the  end.  I  saw  that  he  was  uneasy. 
Two  passers-by  stopped  and  listened.  The  soldier 
seemed  to  be  troubled  that  he  should  be  condemned 
for  doing  his  duty  in  driving  persons  away  from  a 
place  where  they  had  been  forbidden  to  linger.  He 
thought  himself  at  fault,  and  sought  for  an  excuse, 


20  MY  RELIGION. 

Suddenly  his  eye  brightened  ;  he  looked  at  me  over 
his  shoulder,  as  if  he  were  about  to  move  away. 

"  And  the  military  regulation,  do  you  know  any- 
thing about  that?  "  he  demanded. 

"  No,"  I  said. 

"  In  that  case,  you  have  nothing  to  say  to  me," 
he  retorted,  with  a  triumphant  wag  of  the  head,  and 
elevating  his  plume  once  more,  he  marched  away  to 
his  post.  He  was  the  only  man  that  I  ever  met  who 
had  solved,  with  an  inflexible  logic,  the  question 
which  eternally  confronted  me  in  social  relations, 
and  which  rises  continually  before  every  man  who 
calls  himself  a  Christian. 


CHAPTER  III. 

WE  are  wrong  when  we  say  that  the  Christian 
doctrine  is  concerned  only  with  the  salvation 
of  the  individual,  and.  has  nothing  to  do  with  ques- 
tions of  State.  Such  an  assertion  is  simply  a  bold 
affirmation  of  an  untruth,  which,  when  we  examine 
it  seriously,  falls  of  itself  to  the  ground.  It  is  well 
(so  I  said)  ;  I  will  resist  not  evil ;  I  will  turn  the 
other  cheek  in  private  life  ;  but  hither  comes  the 
enenry,  or  here  is  an  oppressed  nation,  and  I  am 
called  upon  to  do  my  part  in  the  struggle  against 
evil,  to  go  forth  and  kill.  I  must  decide  the  ques- 
tion, to  serve  God  or  tohu,  to  go  to  war  or  not  to 
go.  Perhaps  I  am  a  peasant ;  I  am  appointed 
mayor  of  a  village,  a  judge,  a  juiyman ;  I  am 
obliged  to  take  the  oath  of  office,  to  judge,  to  con- 
demn. What  ought  I  to  do?  Again  I  must  choose 
between  the  divine  law  and  the  human  law.  Per- 
haps I  am  a  monk  living  in  a  monastery ;  the  neigh- 
boring peasants  trespass  upon  our  pasturage,  and  I 
am  appointed  to  resist  evil,  to  plead  for  justice 
against  the  wrong-doers.  Again  I  must  choose. 
It  is  a  dilemma  from  which  no  man  can  escape. 

I  do  not  speak  of  those  whose  entire  lives  are 
passed  in  resisting  evil,  as  military  authorities, 
judges,  or  governors.  No  one  is  so  obscure  that  he  is 
not  obliged  to  choose  between  the  service  of  God  and 


22  MY  RELIGION. 

the  service  of  tohu,  in  his  relation  to  the  State. 
My  very  existence,  entangled  with  that  of  the  State 
and  the  social  existence  organized  by  the  State,  ex- 
acts from  me  an  anti-Christian  activity  directly  con- 
trary to  the  commandments  of  Jesus.  In  fact,  with 
conscription  and  compulsory  jury  service,  this  piti- 
less dilemma  arises  before  every  one.  Every  one  is 
forced  to  take  up  murderous  weapons ;  and  even  if 
he  does  not  get  as  far  as  murder,  his  weapons  must 
be  read}*,  his  carbine  loaded,  and  his  sword  keen  of 
edge,  that  he  may  declare  himself  ready  for  murder. 
Every  one  is  forced  into  the  service  of  the  courts  to 
take  part  in  meting  out  judgment  and  sentence  ;  that 
is,  to  deny  the  commandment  of  Jesus,  "  Resist  not 
evil"  in  acts  as  well  as  in  words. 

The  soldier's  problem,  the  Gospel  or  military 
regulations,  divine  law  or  human  law,  is  before 
mankind  to-day  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Samuel.  It 
was  forced  upon  Jesus  and  upon  his  disciples ;  it  is 
forced  in  these  times  upon  all  who  would  be  Chris- 
tians ;  and  it  was  forced  upon  me. 

The  law  of  Jesus,  with  its  doctrine  of  love,  humility, 
and  self-denial,  touched  my  heart  more  deeply  than 
ever  before.  But  everywhere,  in  the  annals  of  his- 
tory, in  the  events  that  were  going  on  about  me,  in 
my  individual  life,  I  saw  the  law  opposed  in  a  man- 
ner revolting  to  sentiment,  conscience,  and  reason, 
and  encouraging  to  brute  instincts.  I  felt  that  if  I 
adopted  the  law  of  Jesus,  I  should  be  alone  ;  I  should 
pass  many  unhappy  hours ;  I  should  be  persecuted 
and  afflicted  as  Jesus  had  said.     But  if  I  adopted 


MY  RELIGION.  23 

the  human  law,  everybody  would  approve  ;  I  should 
be  in  peace  and  safety,  with  all  the  resources  of  civ- 
ilization at  my  command  to  put  my  conscience  at 
ease.  As  Jesus  said,  I  should  laugh  and  be  glad.  I 
felt  all  this,  and  so  I  did  not  analyze  the  meaning  of 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  but  sought  to  understand  it 
in  such  a  way  that  it  might  not  interfere  with  my 
life  as  an  animal.  That  is,  I  did  not  wish  to  under- 
stand it  at  all.  This  determination  not  to  under- 
stand led  me  into  delusions  which  now  astound  me. 
As  an  instance  in  point,  let  me  explain  my  former 
understanding  of  these  words  :  — 

"Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged"  (Matt.  vii.  1.) 
"Judge  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  judged;  condemn 
not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  condemned."  (Luke  vi.  37.) 
The  courts  in  which  I  served,  and  which  insured 
the  safety  of  my  property  and  my  person,  seemed  to 
be  institutions  so  indubitably  sacred  and  so  entirely 
in  accord  with  the  divine  law,  it  had  never  entered 
into  my  head  that  the  words  I  have  quoted  could 
have  any  other  meaning  than  an  injunction  not  to 
speak  ill  of  one's  neighbor.  It  never  occurred  to 
me  that  Jesus  spoke  in  these  words  of  the  courts  of 
human  law  and  justice.  It  was  only  when  I  under- 
stood the  true  meaning  of  the  words,  "Resist  not 
evil,"  that  the  question  arose  as  to  Jesus'  advice 
with  regard  to  tribunals.  When  I  understood  that 
Jesus  would  denounce  them,  I  asked  myself,  Is  not 
this  the  real  meaning :  Not  only  do  not  judge  your 
neighbor,  do  not  speak  ill  of  him,  but  do  not  judge 
him  in  the  courts,  do  not  judge  him  in  any  of  the 


24  MY  RELIGION. 

tribunals  that  you  have  instituted?  Now  in  Luke 
(vi.  37-49)  these  words  follow  immediately  the  doc- 
trine that  exhorts  us  to  resist  not  evil  and  to  do  good 
to  our  enemies.  And  after  the  injunction,  "  Be  ye 
therefore  merciful,  as  your  Father  also  is  merciful," 
Jesus  says,  "Judge  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  judged; 
condemn  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  condemned."  "Judge 
not;"  does  not  this  mean,  Institute  no  tribunals  for 
the  judgment  of  your  neighbor  ?  I  had  only  to  bring 
this  boldly  before  myself  when  heart  and  reason 
united  in  an  affirmative  reply. 

To  show  how  far  I  was  before  from  the  true  inter- 
pretation, I  shall  confess  a  foolish  pleasantry  for 
which  I  still  blush.  When  I  was  reading  the  New 
Testament  as  a  divine  book  at  the  time  that  I  had 
become  a  believer,  I  was  in  the  habit  of  saying  to 
my  friends  who  were  judges  or  attorneys,  "And  you 
still  judge,  although  it  is  said,  '  Judge  not,  and  ye 
shall  not  be  judged' ?"  I  was  so  sure  that  these 
words  could  have  no  other  meaning  than  a  condem- 
nation of  evil-speaking  that  I  did  not  comprehend 
the  horrible  blasphemy  which  I  thus  committed.  I 
was  so  thoroughly  convinced  that  these  words  did 
not  mean  what  they  did  mean,  that  I  quoted  them  in 
their  true  sense  in  the  form  of  a  pleasantry. 

I  shall  relate  in  detail  how  it  was  that  all  doubt 
with  regard  to  the  true  meaning  of  these  words  was 
effaced  from. my  mind,  and  how  I  saw  their  purport 
to  be  that  Jesus  denounced  the  institution  of  all 
human  tribunals,  of  whatever  sort ;  that  he  meant 
to  say  so,  and  could  not  have  expressed   himself 


MY  RELIGION.  25 

otherwise.  When  I  understood  the  command,  "Re- 
sist not  evil,"  in  its  proper  sense,  the  lirst  thing  that 
occurred  to  me  was  that  tribunals,  instead  of  con- 
forming to  this  law,  were  directly  opposed  to  it,  and 
indeed  to  the  entire  doctrine  ;  and  therefore  that  if 
Jesus  had  thought  of  tribunals  at  all,  he  would  have 
condemned  them. 

Jesus  said,  "Resist  not  evil";  the  sole  aim  of 
tribunals  is  to  resist  evil.  Jesus  exhorted  us  to 
return  good  for  evil ;  tribunals  return  evil  for  evil. 
Jesus  said  that  we  were  to  make  no  distinction 
between  those  who  do  good  and  those  who  do  evil ; 
tribunals  do  nothing  else.  Jesus  said,  Forgive, 
forgive  not  once  or  seven  tim^s,  but  without  limit ; 
love  your  enemies,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you  — 
but  tribunals  do  not  forgive,  they  punish ;  they  re- 
turn not  good  but  evil  to  those  whom  the}'  regard  as 
the  enemies  of  society.  It  would  seem,  then,  that 
Jesus  denounced  judicial  institutions.  Perhaps 
(I  said)  Jesus  never  had  anything  to  do  with  courts 
of  justice,  and  so  did  not  think  of  them.  But  I  saw 
that  such  a  theory  was  not  tenable.  Jesus,  from 
his  childhood  to  his  death,  was  concerned  with  the 
tribunals  of  Herod,  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  of  the 
High  Priests.  I  saw  that  Jesus  must  have  regarded 
courts  of  justice  as  wrong.  He  told  his  disciples 
that  they  would  be  dragged  before  the  judges,  and 
gave  them  advice  as  to  how  they  should  comport 
themselves.  He  said  of  himself  that  he  should  be 
condemned  by  a  tribunal,  and  he  showed  what  the 
attitude  toward  judges  ought  to  be.     Jesus,  then, 


26  MY  RELIGION. 

must  have  thought  of  the  judicial  institutions  which 
condemned  him  and  his  disciples  ;  which  have  con- 
demned and  continue  to" condemn  millions  of  men. 

Jesus  saw  the  wrong  and  faced  it.  When  the 
sentence  against  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  was 
about  to  be  carried  into  execution,  he  absolutely 
denied  the  possibility  of  human  justice,  and  demon- 
strated that  man  could  not  be  the  judge  since  man 
himself  was  guilty.  And  this  idea  he  has  pro- 
pounded many  times,  as  where  it  is  declared  that 
one  with  a  beam  in  his  eye  cannot  see  the  mote  in 
another's  eye,  or  that  the  blind  cannot  lead  the 
blind.  He  even  pointed  out  the  consequences  of 
such  misconceptions, —  the  disciple  would  be  above 
his  Master. 

Perhaps,  however,  after  having  denounced  the 
incompetency  of  human  justice  as  displayed  in  the 
case  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  or  illustrated 
in  the  parable  of  the  mote  and  the  beam ;  perhaps, 
after  all,  Jesus  would  admit  of  an  appeal  to  the 
justice  of  men  where  it  was  necessary  for  protection 
against  evil ;  but  I  soon  saw  that  this  was  inadmissi- 
ble. In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  he  says,  address- 
ing the  multitude, 

"And  if  any  man  will  sue  thee  at  the  law,  and  take 
away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak  also."  (Matt. 
v.  40.) 

Once  more,  perhaps  Jesus  spoke  only  of  the 
personal  bearing  which  a  man  should  have  when 
brought  before  judicial  institutions,  and  did  not  con- 
demn justice,  but  admitted  the  necessity  in  a  Chris- 


MY  RELIGION.  21 

tian  society  of  individuals  who  judge  others  in 
properly  constituted  forms.  But  I  saw  that  this 
view  was  also  inadmissible.  When  he  prayed,  Jesus 
besought  all  men,  without  exception,  to  forgive 
others,  that  their  own  trespasses  might  be  forgiven. 
This  thought  he  often  expresses.  He  who  brings 
his  gift  to  the  altar  with  prayer  must  first  grant  for- 
giveness. How,  then,  could  a  man  judge  and 
condemn  when  his  religion  commanded  him  to  for- 
give all  trespasses,  without  limit?  So  I  saw  that 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  no  Christian 
judge  could  pass  sentence  of  condemnation. 

But  .might  not  the  relation  between  the  words 
"Judge  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  judged"  and  the 
preceding  or  subsequent  passages  permit  us  to  con- 
clude that  Jesus,  in  saying  "Judge  not"  had  no 
reference  whatever  to  judicial  institutions?  No; 
this  could  not  be  so  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  clear  from 
the  relation  of  the  phrases  that  in  saying  "  Judge 
not"  Jesus  did  actually  speak  of  judicial  institu- 
tions. According  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  before 
saying  "Judge  not,  condemn  not"  his  command 
was  to  resist  not  evil.  And  prior  to  this,  as  Matthew 
tells  us,  he  repeated  the  ancient  criminal  law  of  the 
Jews,  "  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth." 
Then,  after  this  reference  to  the  old  criminal  law, 
he  added,  "But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not 
evil";  and,  after  that,  "Judge  not."  Jesus  did, 
then,  refer  directly  to  human  criminal  law,  and 
reproved  it  in  the  words,  "Judge  not."  Moreover, 
according  to  Luke,  he  not  only  said,  "Judge  not," 


28  MY  RELIGION. 

but  also,  "  Condemn  not."  It  was  not  without  a 
purpose  that  he  added  this  almost  synonymous 
word ;  it  shows  clearly  what  meaning  should  be  at- 
tributed to  the  other.  It*  he  had  wished  to  say 
"  Judge  not  your  neighbor,"  he  would  have  said 
"  neighbor"  ;  but  he  added  the  words  which  are 
translated  "  Condemn  not"  and  then  completed  the 
sentence,  "  And  ye  shall  not  be  condemned :  forgive, 
and  ye  shall  be  forgiven."  But  some  may  still  insist 
that  Jesus,  in  expressing  himself  in  this  way,  did 
not  refer  at  all  to  the  tribunals,  and  that  I  have  read 
my  own  thoughts  into  his  teachings.  Let  the  apos- 
tles tell  us  what  they  thought  of  courts  Of  justice, 
and  if  they  recognized  and  approved  of  them.  The 
apostle  James  says  (iv.  11,  12)  :  — 

"Speak  not  evil  one  of  another,  brethren.  He 
that  speaketh  evil  of  his  brother,  and  judgeth  his 
brother,  speaketh  evil  of  the  law,  and  judgeth  the  law : 
but  if  thou  judge  the  law,  thou  art  not  a  doer  of  the 
law,  but  a  judge.  There  is  one  lawgiver,  ivho  is  able 
to  save  and  to  destroy:  ivho  art  thou  that  judgest 
another  ?  " 

The  word  translated  "speak  evil"  is  the  verb 
KaTa\a\£<o,  which  means  "  to  speak  against,  to  ac- 
cuse "  ;  this  is  its  true  meaning,  as  any  one  may  find 
out  for  himself  by  opening  a  dictionary.  In  the 
translation  we  read,  "He  that  speaketh  evil  of  his 
brother,  .  .  .  speaketh  evil  of  the  law."  Why  so?  is 
the  question  that  involuntarily  arises.  I  may  speak 
evil  of  my  brother,  but  I  do  not  thereby  speak  evil 


MY  RELIGION.  29 

of  the  law.  If,  however,  I  accuse  my  brother,  if  1 
bring  him  to  justice,  it  is  plain  that  I  thereby  accuse 
the  law  of  Jesus  of  insufficiency :  I  accuse  and 
judge  the  law.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  I  do  not  prac- 
tise the  law,  but  that  I  make  myself  a  judge  of  the 
law.  "  Not  to  judge,  but  to  save  "  is  Jesus'  declara- 
tion. How  then  shall  I,  who  cannot  save,  become  a 
judge  and  punish?  The  entire  passage  refers  to 
human  justice,  and  denies  its  authority.  The  whole 
epistle  is  permeated  with  the  same  idea.  In  the 
second  chapter  we  read  :  — 

u  For  he  shall  have  judgment  without  mercy,  that 
hath  shelved  no  mercy;  and  mercy  is  exalted  above 
judgment"  1     (Jas.  ii.  13.) 

(The  last  phrase  has  been  translated  in  such  a 
way  as  to  declare  that  judgment  is  compatible  with 
Christianity,  but  that  it  ought  to  be  merciful.) 

James  exhorts  his  brethren  to  have  no  respect  of 
persons.  If  you  have  respect  of  the  condition  of 
persons,  you  are  guilty  of  sin  ;  you  are  like  the 
untrustworthy  judges  of  the  tribunals.  You  look 
upon  the  beggar  as  the  refuse  of  society,  while  it  is 
the  rich  man  who  ought  to  be  so  regarded.  He  it  is 
who  oppresses  you  and  draws  you  before  the  judg- 
ment-seats. If  you  live  according  to  the  law  of  love 
for  your  neighbor,  according  to  the  law  of  mercy 
(which  James  calls  "  the  law  of  liberty"  to  distin- 
guish it  from  all  others)  —  if  you  live  according  to 

1  Count  Tolstoi's  rendering. 


30  MY  RELIGION. 

this  law,  it  is  well.  But  if  3-011  have  respect  of  per- 
sons, you  transgress  the  law  of  mere}-.  Then 
(doubtless  thinking  of  the  case  of  the  woman  taken 
in  adultery,  who,  when  she  was  brought  before 
Jesus,  was  about  to  be  put  to  death  according  to 
the  law),  thinking,  no  doubt,  of  that,  case,  James 
says  that  he  who  inflicts  death  upon  the  adulterous 
woman  would  himself  be  guilty  of  murder,  and 
thereby  transgress  the  eternal  law  ;  for  the  same  law 
forbids  both  adultery  and  murder. 

"  So  speak  ye,  and  so  do,  as  they  that  shall  be  judged 
by  the  laiv  of  liberty.  For  he  shall  have  juajment 
without  mercy,  that  hath  shewed  no  mercy ;  and  mercy 
is  exalted  above  judgment.'"     (Jas.  ii.  12,  13.) 

Could  the  idea  be  expressed  in  terms  more  clear 
and  precise?  Respect  of  persons  is  forbidden,  as 
well  as  any  judgment  that  shall  classify  persons  as^ 
good  or  bad ;  human  judgment  is  declared  to 
be  inevitably  defective,  and  such  judgment  is  de- 
nounced as  criminal  when  it  condemns  for  crime ; 
judgment  is  blotted  out  b}r  the  eternal  law,  the  law 
of  mercy. 

I  open  the  epistles  of  Paul,  who  had  been  a  vic- 
tim of  tribunals,  and  in  the  letter  to  the  Romans  I 
read  the  admonitions  of  the  apostle  for  the  vices 
and  errors  of  those  to  whom  his  words  are  ad- 
dressed ;  among  other  matters  he  speaks  of  courts 
of  justice  :  — 

"  Who,  knowing  the  judgment  of  God,  that  they 
which  commit  such  things  are  worthy  of  death,  not 


MY  RELIGION.  31 

only  do  the  same,  but  have  pleasure  in  them  that  do 
them."    (Rom.  i.  32.) 

"  TJierefore  thou  art  inexcusable,  0  man,  whosoever 
thou  art  that  judgest:  for  wherein  thou  judgest  an- 
other, thou  condemnest  thyself;  for  thou  that  judgest 
doest  the  same  things"     (Rom.  ii.  1.) 

"  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness  and 
forbearance  and  long  suffering ;  not  knotting  that  the 
goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance ?"  (Rom. 
ii.  4.) 

Such  was  the  opinion  of  the  apostles  with  regard 
to  tribunals,  and  we  know  that  human  justice  was 
among  the  trials  and  sufferings  that  they  endured 
with  steadfastness  and  resignation  to  the  will  of 
God.  When  we  think  of  the  situation  of  the  early 
Christians,  surrounded  by  unbelievers,  we  can  under- 
stand the  futility  of  denying  to  tribunals  the  right 
to  judge  persecuted  Christians.  The  apostles  spoke 
casually  of  tribunals  as  grievous,  and  denied  their 
authority  on  every  occasion. 

I  examined  the  teachings  of  the  early  Fathers  of 
the  Church,  and  found  them  to  agree  in  obliging  no 
one  to  judge  or  to  condemn,  and  in  urging  all  to 
bear  the  inflictions  of  justice.  The  martyrs,  by 
their  acts,  declared  themselves  to  be  of  the  same 
mind.  I  saw  that  Christianity  before  Constantine 
regarded  tribunals  only  as  an  evil  which  was  to  be 
endured  with  patience ;  but  it  never  could  have 
Occurred  to  any  early  Christian  that  he  could  take 
part  in  the  administration  of  the  courts  of  justicef 


32  MY  RELIGION. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Jesus'  words,  "Judge  not^ 
condemn  not"  were  understood  by  his  first  disciples, 
as  they  ought  to  be  understood  now,  in  their  direct 
and  literal  meaning  :  judge  not  in  courts  of  justice  ; 
take  no  part  in  them. 

All  this  seemed  absolutely  to  corroborate  my  con- 
viction that  the  words,  "Judge  not,  condemn  not," 
referred  to  the  justice  of  tribunals.  Yet  the  mean- 
ing, "Speak  not  evil  of  your  neighbor,"  is  so  firmly 
established,  and  courts  of  justice  flaunt  their  decrees 
with  so  much  assurance  and  audacity  in  all  Christian 
societies,  with  the  support  even  of  the  Church,  that 
for  a  long  time  still  I  doubted  the  wisdom  of  my 
interpretation.  If  men  have  understood  the  words 
in  this  wa}T  (I  thought) ,  and  have  instituted  Chris- 
tian tribunals,  they  must  certainly  have  some  reason 
for  so  doing ;  there  must  be  a  good  reason  for  re- 
garding these  words  as  a  denunciation  of  evil-speak- 
ing, and  there  is  certainly  a  basis  of  some  sort  for 
the  institution  of  Christian  tribunals  ;  perhaps,  after 
all,  I  am  in  the  wrong. 

I  turned  to  the  Church  commentaries.  In  all, 
from  the  fifth  century  onward,  I  found  the  invari- 
able interpretation  to  be,  "Accuse  not  your  neigh- 
bor "  ;  that  is,  avoid  evil-speaking.  As  the  words 
came  to  be  understood  exclusively  in  this  sense,  a 
difficulty  arose, — How  to  refrain  from  judgment? 
It  being  impossible  not  to  condemn  evil,  all  the 
commentators  discussed  the  question,  What  is  blam- 
able   and   what  is  not  blamable?     Some,  such  as 


MY  RELIGION.  33 

Chrysostom  and  Theophylact,  said  that,  as  far  as 
servants  of  the  Church  were  concerned,  the  phrase 
could  not  be  construed  as  a  prohibition  of  censure, 
since  the  apostles  themselves  were  censorious. 
Others  said  that  Jesus  doubtless  referred  to  the 
Jews,  who  accused  their  neighbors  of  shortcomings, 
and  were  themselves  guilt}*  of  great  sins. 

Nowhere  a  word  about  human  institutions,  about 
tribunals,  to  show  how  they  were  affected  by  the 
warning,  "Judge  not."  Did  Jesus  sanction  courts 
of  justice,  or  did  he  not?  To  this  very  natural  ques- 
tion I  found  no  reply  —  as  if  it  was  evident  that 
from  the  moment  a  Christian  took  his  seat  on  the 
judge's  bench  he  might  not  only  judge  his  neighbor, 
but  condemn  him  to  death. 

I  turned  to  other  writers,  Greek,  Catholic,  Profr 
estant,  to  the  Tubingen  school,  to  the  historical 
school.  Everywhere,  even  by  the  most  liberal  com- 
mentators, the  words  in  question  were  interpreted 
as  an  injunction  against  evil-speaking. 

But  why,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  Jesus,  are  these  words  interpreted  in  so 
narrow  a  way  as  to  exclude  courts  of  justice  from 
the  injunction,  "Judge  not"?  Why  the  supposi- 
tion that  Jesus  in  forbidding  the  comparatively  light 
offence  of  speaking  evil  of  one's  neighbor  did  not 
forbid,  did  not  even  consider,  the  more  deliberate 
judgment  which  results  in  punishment  inflicted  upon 
the  condemned  ?  To  all  this  I  got  no  response  ;  not 
even  an  allusion  to  the   least   possibility  that  the 


34  MY  RELIGION. 

words  "to  judge"  could  be  used  as  referring  to  a 
court  of  justice,  to  the  tribunals  from  whose  pun- 
ishments so  many  millions  have  suffered. 

Moreover,  when  the  words,  "  Judge  not,  con- 
demn not"  are  under  discussion,  the  cruelty  of 
judging  in  courts  of  justice  is  passed  over  in 
silence,  or  else  commended.  The  commentators 
all  declare  that  in  Christian  societies  tribunals 
are  necessary,  and  in  no  way  contrary  to  the  law 
of  Jesus. 

Realizing  this,  I  began  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of 
the  commentators  ;  and  I  did  what  I  should  have 
done  in  the  first  place  ;  I  turned  to  the  textual  trans- 
lations of  the  words  which  we  render  "to  judge" 
and  "  to  condemn."  In  the  original  these  words 
are  Kp'.vo)  and  KaraBt/ca^w.  The  defective  translation 
in  James  of  KaraXaXew,  which  is  rendered  "  to  speak 
evil,"  strengthened  my  doubts  as  to  the  correct 
translation  of  the  others.  When  I  looked  through 
different  versions  of  the  Gospels,  I  found  Kara8iKa£co 
rendered  in  the  Vulgate  by  condemnare,  "  to  con- 
demn " ;  in  the  Slavonian  text  the  rendering  is 
equivalent  to  that  of  the  Vulgate ;  Luther  has  ver- 
dammen,  "  to  speak  evil  of."  These  divergent 
renderings  increased  my  doubts,  and  I  was  obliged 
to  ask  again  the  meaning  of  Kpivio,  as  used  by  the 
two  evangelists,  and  of  Kara8tKa£w,  as  used  by 
Luke  who,  scholars  tell  us,  wrote  very  correct 
Greek. 

How  would  these  words  be  translated  by  a  man 


MY  RELIGION.  35 

who  knew  nothing  of  the  evangelical  creed,  and 
who  had  before  him  onty  the  phrases  in  which  they 
are  used? 

Consulting  the  dictionary,  I  found  that  the  word 
Kpivoi  had  several  different  meanings,  among  the 
most  used  being  "  to  condemn  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice," and  even  "  to  condemn  to  death,"  but  in  no 
instance  did  it  signify  "to  speak  evil."  I  con- 
sulted a  dictionary  of  New  Testament  Greek,  and 
found  that  was  often  used  in  the  sense  "  to  con- 
demnMn  a  court  of  justice,"  sometimes  in  the  sense 
"to  choose,"  never  as  meaning  "to  speak  evil." 
From  which  I  inferred  that  the  word  k/hVco  might  be 
translated  in  different  ways,  but  that  the  rendering 
"to  speak  evil"  was  the  most  forced  and  far- 
fetched. 

I  searched  for  the  word  KaraSt/ca^to,  which  follows 
K/otVw,  evidently  to  define  more  closely  the  sense  in 
which  the  latter  is  to  be  understood.  I  looked  for 
KaraSiKaCoi  in  the  dictionary,  and  found  that  it  had 
no  other  signification  than  "  to  condemn  in  judg- 
ment," or  "to  judge  worthy  of  death."  I  found 
that  the  word  was  used  four  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, each  time  in  the  sense  "  to  condemn  under 
sentence,  to  judge  worthy  of  death."  In  James  (v. 
6)  we  read,  "  Ye  have  condemned  and  killed  the 
just."  The  word  rendered  "condemned"  is  this 
same  /caTaSiKa£<o,  and  is  used  with  reference  to  Jesus, 
who  was  condemned  to  death  by  a  court  of  justice. 
The  word  is  never  used  in  any  other  sense,  in  the 


36  MY  RELIGION. 

New  Testament  or  in  any  other  writing  in  the  Greek 
language. 

What,  then,  are  we  to  say  to  all  this?  Is  my 
conclusion  a  foolish  one?  Is  not  every  one  who 
considers  the  fate  of  humanity  filled  with  horror  at 
the  sufferings  inflicted  upon  mankind  b}'  the  enforce- 
ment of  criminal  codes,  —  a  scourge  to  those  who 
condemn  as  well  as  to  the  condemned,  —  from  the 
slaughters  of  Genghis  Khan  to  those  of  the  French 
Revolution  and  the  executions  of  our  own  times? 
He  would  indeed  be  without  compassion  who  could 
refrain  from  feeling  horror  and  repulsion,  not  only 
at  the  sight  of  human  beings  thus  treated  by  their 
kind,  but  at  the  simple  recital  of  death  inflicted  by 
the  knout,  the  guillotine,  or  the  gibbet. 

The  Gospel,  of  which  every  word  is  sacred  to  you, 
declares  distinctly  and  without  equivocation:  fc*  You 
have  from  of  old  a  criminal  law,  An  eye  for  an  eye, 
a  tooth  for  a  tooth  ;  but  a  new  law  is  given  3-011,  That 
you  resist  not  evil.  Obey  this  law  ;  render  not  evil 
for  evil,  but  do  good  to  everyone,  forgive  everyone, 
under  all  circumstances."  Further  on  comes  the 
injunction,  "Judge  not"  and  that  these  words  might 
not  be  misunderstood,  Jesus  added,  "  Condemn  not; 
condemn  not  in  justice  the  crimes  of  others." 

"No  more  death-warrants,"  said  an  inner  voice — 
"  no  more  death-warrants,"  said  the  voice  of  science  ; 
"  evil  cannot  suppress  evil."  The  Word  of  God,  in 
which  I  believed,  told  me  the  same  thing.  And 
when  in  reading  the  doctrine,  I  came  to  the  words, 


MY  RELIGION.  3? 

1 '  Condemn  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  condemned :  for  ■ 
give,  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven,"  could  I  look  upon 
them  as  meaning  simply  that  I  was  not  to  indulge  in 
gossip  and  evil-speaking,  and  should  continue  to 
regard  tribunals  as  a  Christian  institution,  and  my- 
self as  a  Christian  judge  ? 

I  was  overwhelmed  with  horror  at  the  grossness 
of  the  error  into  which  I  had  fallen. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

I  NOW  understood  the  words  of  Jesus  :  "  Ye  have 
heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for  an  eye, 
and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth :  but  I  say  unto  you,  That 
ye  resist  not  evil"  Jesus'  meaning  is:  "You  have 
thought  that  you  were  acting  in  a  reasonable  manner 
in  defending  yourself  by  violence  against  evil,  in 
tearing  out  an  eye  for  an  eye,  by  fighting  against 
evil  with  criminal  tribunals,  guardians  of  the  peace, 
armies ;  but  I  say  unto  you,  Renounce  violence ; 
have  nothing  to  do  with  violence ;  do  harm  to  no 
one,  not  even  to  your  enemy."  I  understood  now 
that  in  saying  " Resist  not  evil,"  Jesus  not  only  told 
us  what  would  result  from  the  observance  of  this 
rule,  but  established  a  new  basis  for  society  con- 
formable to  his  doctrine  and  opposed  to  the  social 
basis  established  by  the  law  of  Moses,  by  Roman 
law,  and  by  the  different  codes  in  force  to-daj-.  He 
formulated  a  new  law  whose  effect  would  be  to  de- 
liver humanity  from  its  self-inflicted  woes.  His 
declaration  was:  "You  believe  that  your  laws 
reform  criminals ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  only 
make  more  criminals.  There  is  only  one  way  to 
suppress  evil,  and  that  is  to  return  good  for  evil, 
without  respect  of  persons.     For  thousands  of  years 


MY  RELIGION.  39 

you  have  tried  the  other  method  ;  now  try  mine,  try 
the  reverse." 

Strange  to  say,  in  these  later  days,  I  talked  with 
different  persons  about  this  commandment  of  Jesus, 
"Resist  not  evil"  and  rarety  found  any  one  to  coin- 
cide with  my  opinion !  Two  classes  of  men  would 
never,  even  by  implication,  admit  the  literal  inter- 
pretation of  the  law.  These  men  were  at  the  ex- 
treme poles  of  the  social  scale,  —  they  were  the 
conservative  Christian  patriots  who  maintained  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church,  and  the  atheistic  revolu- 
tionists. Neither  of  these  two  classes  was  willing 
to  renounce  the  right  to  resist  by  violence  what  they 
regarded  as  evil.  And  the  wisest  and  most  intel- 
ligent  among  them  would  not  acknowledge  the  simple 
and  evident  truth,  that  if  we  once  admit  the  right  of 
any  man  to  resist  by  violence  what  he  regards  as 
evil,  every  other  man  has  equally  the  right  to  resist 
by  violence  what  he  regards  as  evil. 

Not  long  ago  I  had  in  my  hands  an  interesting 
correspondence  between  an  orthodox  Slavophile  and 
a  Christian  revolutionist.  The  one  advocated  vio- 
lence as  a  partisan  of  a  war  for  the  relief  of  brother 
Slavs  in  bondage  ;  the  other,  as  a  partisan  of  revo- 
lution, in  the  name  of  our  brothers  the  oppressed 
Russian  peasantry.  Both  invoked  violence,  and  each 
based  himself  upon  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  The  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  is  understood  in  a  hundred  different 
ways ;  but  never,  unhappily,  in  the  simple  and 
direct  way  which  harmonizes  with  the  inevitable 
meaning  of  Jesus'  words. 


40  MY  RELIGION. 

Our  entire  social  fabric  is  founded  upon  prin- 
ciples that  Jesus  reproved ;  we  do  not  wish  to 
understand  his  doctrine  in  its  simple  and  direct 
acceptation,  and  yet  we  assure  ourselves  and  others 
that  we  follow  his  doctrine,  or  else  that  his  doctrine 
is  not  expedient  for  us.  Believers  profess  that 
Christ  as  God,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity, 
descended  upon  earth  to  teach  men  by  his  example 
how  to  live  ;  they  go  through  the  most  elaborate 
ceremonies  for  the  consummation  of  the  sacraments, 
the  building  of  temples,  the  sending  out  of  mission- 
aries, the  establishment  of  priesthoods,  for  parochial 
administration,  for  the  performance  of  rituals ;  but 
they  forget  one  little  detail, — -the  practice  of  the 
commandments  of  Jesus.  Unbelievers  endeavor  in 
every  possible  way  to  organize  their  existence  inde- 
pendent of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  they  having  de- 
cided a  priori  that  this  doctrine  is  of  no  account. 
But  to  endeavor  to  put  his  teachings  in  practice,  this 
each  refuses  to  do  ;  and  the  worst  of  it  is,  that  with- 
out any  attempt  to  put  them  in  practice,  both  be- 
lievers and  unbelievers  decide  a  priori  that  it  is 
impossible. 

Jesus  said,  simply  and  clearly,  that  the  law  of 
resistance  to  evil  by  violence,  which  has  been  made 
the  basis  of  society,  is  false,  and  contrary  to  man's 
nature  ;  and  he  gave  another  basis,  that  of  non- 
resistance  to  evil,  a  law  which,  according  to  his 
doctrine,  would  deliver  man  from  wrong.  "You 
believe"  (he  says  in  substance)  "that  your  laws, 
which  resort  to  violence,  correct  evil ;  not  at  all ; 


MY  RELIGION.  41 

they  only  augment  it.  For  thousands  of  years  you 
have  tried  to  destroy  evil  by  evil,  and  you  have  not 
destroyed  it ;  you  have  only  augmented  it.  Do  as  I 
command  you,  follow  my  example,  and  you  will 
know  that  my  doctrine  is  true."  Not  only  in  words, 
but  by  his  acts,  by  his  death,  did  Jesus  propound 
his  doctrine,  "Resist  not  evil." 

Believers  listen  to  all  this.  They  hear  it  in  their 
churches,  persuaded  that  the  words  are  divine ;  they 
worship  Jesus  as  God,  and  then  they  say:  "All 
this  is  admirable,  but  it  is  impossible  ;  as  society  is 
now  organized,  it  would  derange  our  whole  exist- 
ence, and  we  should  be  obliged  to  give  up  the  cus- 
toms that  are  so  clear  to  us.  We  believe  it  all,  but 
only  in  this  sense :  That  it  is  the  ideal  toward  which 
humanity  ought  to  move  ;  the  ideal  which  is  to  be 
attained  by  prayer,  and  by  believing  in  the  sacra- 
ments, in  the  redemption,  and  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead." 

The  others,  the  unbelievers,  the  free-thinkers  who 
comment  on  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  the  historians  of 
religions,  the  Strausses,  the  Renans,  —  completely 
imbued  with  the  teachings  of  the  Church,  which  says 
that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  accords  with  difficulty 
with  our  conceptions  of  life,  — tell  us  very  seriously 
that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  the  doctrine  of  a  vis- 
ionary, the  consolation  of  feeble  minds  ;  that  it  was 
all  very  well  preached  in  the  fishermen's  huts 
by  Galilee ;  but  that  for  us  it  is  only  the  sweet 
dream  of  one  whom  Renan  calls  the  "  charmant 
docteur." 


42  MY  RELIGION. 

In  their  opinion,  Jesus  could  not  rise  to  the  heights 
of  wisdom  and  culture  attained  by  our  civilization. 
If  he  had  been  on  an  intellectual  level  with  his  mod- 
ern critics,  he  never  would  have  uttered  his  charm- 
ing nonsense  about  the  birds  of  the  air,  the  turning 
of  the  other  cheek,  the  taking  no  thought  for  the 
morrow.  These  historical  critics  judge  of  the  value 
of  Christianity  by  what  they  see  of  it  as  it  now 
exists.  The  Christianity  of  our  age  and  civiliza- 
tion approves  of  society  as  it  now  is,  with  its 
prison-cells,  its  factories,  its  houses  of  infamy,  its 
parliaments ;  but  as  for  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
which  is  opposed  to  modern  society,  it  is  only 
empty  words.  The  historical  critics  see  this,  and, 
unlike  the  so-called  believers,  having  no  motives 
for  concealment,  submit  the  doctrine  to  a  careful 
analysis ;  they  refute  it  systematically,  and  prove 
that  Christianity  is  made  up  of  nothing  but  chi- 
merical ideas. 

It  would  seem  that  before  deciding  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus,  it  would  be  necessary  to  understand 
of  what  it  consisted ;  and  to  decide  whether  his 
doctrine  is  reasonable  or  not,  it  would  be  well  first 
to  realize  that  he  said  exactly  what  he  did  say. 
And  this  is  precisely  what  we  do  not  do,  what  the 
Church  commentators  do  not  do,  what  the  free- 
thinkers do  not  do  —  and  we  know  very  well  why. 
We  know  perfectly  well  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
is  directed  at  and  denounces  all  human  errors,  all 
tohu,  all  the  empty  idols  that  we  try  to  .  except 
from    the    category   of    errors,   by   dubbing    them 


MY  RELIGION.  43 

"Church,"  "State,"  "Culture,"  " Science, "  "Art," 
"  Civilization."  But  Jesus  spoke  precisely  of  all 
these,  of  these  and  all  other  tohu.  Not  only  Jesus, 
but  all  the  Hebrew  prophets,  John  the  Baptist,  all 
the  true  sages  of  the  world  denounced  the  Church 
and  State  and  culture  and  civilization  of  their  times 
as  sources  of  man's  perdition. 

Imagine  an  architect  who  says  to  a  house-owner, 
"  Your  house  is  good  for  nothing  ;  you  must  rebuild 
it,"  and  then  describes  how  the  supports  are  to  be 
cut  and  fastened.  The  proprietor  turns  a  deaf  ear 
to  the  words,  "Your  house  is  good  for  nothing," 
and  only  listens  respectfully  when  the  architect 
begins  to  discuss  the  arrangement  of  the  rooms. 
Evidently,  in  this  case,  all  the  subsequent  advice 
of  the  architect  will  seem  to  be  impracticable  ;  less 
respectful  proprietors  would  regard  it  as  nonsen- 
sical. But  it  is  precisely  in  this  way  that  we  treat 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  I  give  this  illustration  for 
want  of  a  better.  I  remember  now  that  Jesus  in 
teaching  his  doctrine  made  use  of  the  same  com- 
parison. "  Destroy  this  temple,"  he  said,  "and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up"  It  was  for  this  they 
put  him  on  the  cross,  and  for  this  they  now  crucify 
his  doctrine. 

The  least  that  can  be  asked  of  those  who  pass 
judgment  upon  any  doctrine  is  that  they  shall  judge 
of  it  with  the  same  understanding  as  that  with  which 
it  was  propounded.  Jesus  understood  his  doctrine, 
not  as  a  vague  and  distant  ideal  impossible  of 
attainment,    not   as   a   collection   of  fantastic   and 


44  MY  RELIGION. 

poetical  reveries  with  which  to  charm  the  simple 
inhabitants  on  the  shores  of  Galilee  ;  to  him  his  doc- 
trine was  a  doctrine  of  action,  of  acts  which  should 
become  the  salvation  of  mankind.  This  he  showed 
in  his  manner  of  applying  his  doctrine.  The  cruci- 
fied one  who  cried  out  in  agony  of  spirit  and  died 
for  his  doctrine  was  not  a  dreamer ;  he  was  a  man 
of  action.  They  are  not  dreamers  who  have  died, 
and  still  die,  for  his  doctrine.  No ;  that  doctrine 
is  not  a  chimera  ! 

AH  doctrine  that  reveals  the  truth  is  chimerical 
to  the  blind.  We  may  say,  as  many  people  do  say 
(I  was  of  the  number) ,  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
is  chimerical  because  it  is  contrary  to  human  nature. 
It  is  against  nature,  we  say,  to  turn  the  other  cheek 
when  we  have  been  struck,  to  give  all  that  we  pos- 
sess, to  toil,  not  for  ourselves,  but  for  others.  It  is 
natural,  we  say,  for  a  man  to  defend  his  person, 
his  family,  his  property ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  the 
nature  of  man  to  struggle  for  existence.  A  learned 
person  has  proved  scientifically  that  the  most  sacred 
duty  of  man  is  to  defend  his  rights,  that  is,  to  fight. 

But  the  moment  we  detach  ourselves  from  the 
idea  that  the  existing  organization  established  by 
man  is  the  best,  is  sacred,  the  moment  we  do  this, 
the  objection  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  contrary 
to  human  nature  turns  immediately  upon  him  who 
makes  it.  No  one  will  deny  that  not  only  to  kill  or 
torture  a  man,  but  to  torture  a  dog,  to  kill  a  fowl  or 
a  calf,  is  to  inflict  suffering  reproved  by  human 
nature.     (I  have  known  of  farmera  who  had  ceased 


MY  RELIGION.  45 

to  eat  meat  solely  because  it  had  fallen  to  their  lot 
to  slaughter  animals.)  And  yet  our  existence  is  so 
organized  that  every  personal  en^ment  is  pur- 
chased at  the  price  of  human  suffering  contrary  to 
human  nature. 

We  have  only  to  examine  closely  the  complicated 
mechanism  of  our  institutions  that  are  based  upon 
coercion  to  realize  that  coercion  and  violence  are 
contrary  to  human  nature.  The  judge  who  has 
condemned  according  to  the  code,  js  not  willing  to 
hang  the  criminal  with  his  own  hands ;  no  clerk 
would  tear  a  villager  from  his  weeping  family  and 
cast  him  into  prison  ;  the  general  or  the  soldier, 
unless  he  be  hardened  by  discipline  and  service, 
will  not  undertake  to  slay  a  hundred  Turks  or  Ger- 
mans or  destroy  a  village,  would  not,  if  he  could 
help  it,  kill  a  single  man.  Yet  all  these  things 
are  done,  thanks  to  the  administrative  machinery 
which  divides  responsibility  for  misdeeds  in  such 
a  way  that  no  one  feels  them  to  be  contrary  to 
nature. 

Some  make  the  laws,  others  execute  them ;  some 
train  men  by  discipline  to  automatic  obedience  ;  and 
these  last,  in  their  turn,  become  the  instruments  of 
coercion,  and  slay  their  kind  without  knowing  why 
or  to  what  end.  But  let  a  man  disentangle  himself 
for  a  moment  from  this  complicated  network,  and 
he  will  readily  see  that  coercion  is  coiitraiy  to  his 
nature.  Let  us  abstain  from  affirming  that  organ- 
ized violence,  of  which  we  make  use  to  our  own 
profit,  is  a  divine,  immutable  law,  and  we  shall  see 


46  MY  RELIGION. 

clearly  which  is  most  in  harmony  with  human  nature, 
—  the  doctrine  of  violence  or  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 

What  is  the  law  of  nature?)  Is  it  to  know  that 
my  security  and  that  of  my  family,  all  my  amuse- 
ments and  pleasures,  are  purchased  at  the  expense 
of  misery,  deprivation,  and  suffering  to  thousands 
of  human  freings  —  by  the  terror  of  the  gallows ; 
by  the  misfortune  of  thousands  stifling  within 
prison  walls  ;  by  the  fear  inspired  by  millions  of 
soldiers  and  guardians  of  civilization,  torn  from 
their  homes  and  besotted  by  discipline,  to  protect 
our  pleasures  with  loaded  revolvers  against  the  pos- 
sible interference  of  the  famishing?  Ts  it  to  pur- 
chase every  fragment  of  bread  that  I  put  in  my 
mouth  and  the  mouths  of  my  children  by  the  num- 
berless privations  that  are  necessary  to  procure  my 
abundance  ?  u)r  is  it  to  be  certain  that  my  piece  of 
bread  only  belongs  to  me  when  I  know  that  every  one 
else  has  a  share,  and  that  no  one  starves  while  I  eat? 

It  is  only  necessary  to  understand  that,  thanks  to 
our  social  organization,  each  one  of  our  pleasures, 
every  minute  of  our  cherished  tranquillity,  is  obtained 
by  the  sufferings  and  privations  of  thousands  of  our 
fellows — it  is  only  necessary  to  understand  this, 
to  know  what  is  conformable  to  human  nature  ;  not 
to  our  animal  nature  alone,  but  the  animal  and  spir- 
itual nature  which  constitutes  man.  When  we  once 
understand  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  in  all  its  bearings, 
with  all  its  consequences,  we  shall  be  convinced  that 
his  doctrine  is  not  contrary  to  human  nature  ;  but 
that  its  sole  object  is  to  supplant  the  chimerical  law 


MY  RELIGION.  47 

of  the  struggle  against  evil  by  violence  —  itself  the 
law  contrary  to  human  nature  and  productive  of  so 
many  evils. 

Do  you  say  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  "  Resist 
not  evil"  is  vain?  What,  then,  are  we  to  think  of 
the  lives  of  those  who  are  not  filled  with  love  and 
compassion  for  their  kind,  —  of  those  who  make  ready 
for  their  fellow-men  punishment  at  the  stake,  by  the 
knout,  the  wheel,  the  rack,  chains,  compulsory  labor, 
the  gibbet,  dungeons,  prisons  for  women  and  chil- 
dren, the  hecatombs  of  war,  or  bring  about  periodi- 
cal revolutions ;  of  those  who  carry  these  horrors 
into  execution ;  of  those  who  benefit  by  these  cal- 
amities or  prepare  reprisals,  —  are  not  such  lives 
vain? 

We  need  only  understand  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
to  be  convinced  that  existence,  —  not  the  reasonable 
existence  which  gives  happiness  to  humanity,  but 
the  existence  men  have  organized  to  their  own  hurt, 
—  that  such  an  existence  is  a  vanity,  the  most  sav- 
age and  horrible  of  vanities,  a  veritable  delirium  of 
folly,  to  which,  once  reclaimed,  we  do  not  again 
return. 

God  descended  to  earth,  became  incarnate  to  re- 
deem Adam's  sin,  and  (so  we  were  taught  to  believe) 
said  many  mysterious  and  mystical  things  which  are 
difficult  to  understand,  which  it  is  not  possible  to 
understand  except  by  the  aid  of  faith  and  grace  — 
and  suddenly  the  words  of  God  are  found  to  be  sim- 
ple, clear,  and  reasonable  !  God  said,  Do  no  evil, 
and  evil  will  cease  to  exist.     Was  the  revelation 


48  MY  RELIGION. 

from  God  really  so  simple — nothing  but  that?  It 
would  seem  that  every  one  might  understand  it,  it  is 
so  simple  ! 

The  prophet  Elijah,  a  fugitive  from  men,  took 
refuge  in  a  cave,  and  was  told  that  God  would  ap- 
pear to  him.  There  came  a  great  wind  that  devas- 
tated the  forest ;  Elijah  thought  that  the  Lord  had 
come,  but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the  wind.  After  the 
wind  came  the  thunder  and  the  lightning,  but  God 
was  not  there.  Then  came  the  earthquake :  the 
earth  belched  forth  fire,  the  rocks  were  shattered, 
the  mountain  was  rent  to  its  foundations ;  Elijah 
looked  for  the  Lord,  but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the 
earthquake.  Then,  in  the  calm  that  followed,  a 
gentle  breeze  came  to  the  prophet,  bearing  the  fresh- 
ness of  the  fields ;  and  Elijah  knew  that  God  was 
there.  It  is  a  magnificent  illustration  of  the  words, 
"  Resist  not  evil." 

They  are  very  simple,  these  words  ;  but  they  are, 
nevertheless,  the  expression  of  a  law  divine  and 
human.  If  there  has  been  in  history  a  progressive 
movement  for  the  suppression  of  evil,  it  is  due  to 
the  men  who  understood  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  — 
who  endured  evil,  and  resisted  not  evil  by  violence. 
The  advance  of  humanity  towards  righteousness  is 
due,  not  to  the  tyrants,  but  to  the  martyrs.  As  fire 
cannot  extinguish  fire,  so  evil  cannot  suppress  evil. 
Good  »lone,  confronting  evil  and  resisting  its  con- 
tagion, can  overcome  evil.  And  in  the  inner  world 
of  the  human  soul,  the  law  is  as  absolute  as  it  was 
for  the  hearers  by  Galilee,  more  absolute,  more  clear, 


MY  RELIGION.  49 

more  immutable.  Men  may  turn  aside  from  it,  they 
may  hide  its  truth  from  others  ;  but  the  progress  of 
humanity  towards  righteousness  can  only  be  attained 
in  this  way.  Every  step  must  be  guided  by  the 
command,  "Resist  not  evil."  A  disciple  of  Jesus 
may  say  now,  with  greater  assurance  than  they  of 
Galilee,  in  spite  of  misfortunes  and  threats:  "And 
yet  it  is  not  violence,  but  good,  that  overcomes  evil." 
If  the  progress  is  slow,  it  is  because  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  (which,  through  its  clearness,  simplicity-,  and 
wisdom,  appeals  so  inevitably  to  human  nature), 
because  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  has  been  cunningly 
concealed  from  the  majority  of  mankind  under  an 
entirely  different  doctrine  falsely  called  by  his  name. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  true  meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  was 
revealed  to  me  ;  everything  confirmed  its  truth. 
But  for  a  long  time  I  could  not  accustom  myself  to 
the  strange  fact,  that  after  the  eighteen  centuries 
during  which  the  law  of  Jesus  had  been  professed  by 
millions  of  human  beings,  after  the  eighteen  centuries 
during  which  thousands  of  men  had  consecrated  their 
lives  to  the  study  of  this  law,  I  had  discovered  it 
for  myself  anew.  But  strange  as  it  seemed,  so  it 
was.  Jesus'  law,  "Resist  not  evil"  was  to  me  wholly 
new,  something  of  which  I  had  never  had  any  con- 
ception before.  I  asked  myself  how  this  could  be  ; 
I  must  certainly  have  had  a  false  idea  of  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  to  cause  such  a  misunderstanding.  And  a 
false  idea  of  it  I  unquestionably  had.  When  I  began 
to  read  the  Gospel,  I  was  not  in  the  condition  of  one 
who,  having  heard  nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
becomes  acquainted  with  it  for  the  first  time  ;  on  the 
contrary,  I  had  a  preconceived  theory  as  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  I  ought  to  understand  it.  Jesus  did  not 
appeal  to  me  as  a  prophet  revealing  the  divine  law, 
but  as  one  who  continued  and  amplified  the  absolute 
divine  law  which  I  already  knew ;  for  I  had  very 
dejinite  and  complex  notions  about  God,  the  creator 


MY  RELIGION.  51 

of  the  world  and  of  man,  and  about  the  command- 
ments of  God  given  to  men  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  Moses. 

When  I  came  to  the  words,  "  Ye  have  heard  that 
it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and,  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth:  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not  evil," — . 
the  words,  "An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth,"  expressed  the  law  given  by  God  to  Moses ; 
the  words,  "But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not 
evil,"  expressed  the  new  law,  which  was  a  negation 
of  the  first.  If  I  had  seen  Jesus'  words,  simply,  in 
their  true  sense,  and  not  as  a  part  of  the  theological 
theory  that  I  had  imbibed  at  my  mother's  breast,  I 
should  have  understood  immediately  that  Jesus 
abrogated  the  old  law,  and  substituted  for  it  a  new 
law.  But  I  had  been  taught  that  Jesus  did  not 
abrogate  the  law  of  Moses,  that,  on  the  contrary, 
he  confirmed  it  to  the  slightest  iota,  and  that  he 
made  it  more  complete.  Verses  17-20  of  the  fifth 
chapter  of  Matthew  always  impressed  me,  when  I 
read  the  Gospel,  by  their  obscurity,  and  they  plunged 
me  into  doubt.  I  knew  the  Old  Testament,  partic- 
ularly the  last  books  of  Moses,  very  thoroughly,  and 
recalling  certain  passages  in  which  minute  doctrines, 
often  absurd  and  even  cruel  in  their  purport,  are 
preceded  by  the  words,  "And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,"  it  seemed  to  me  very  singular  that  Jesus 
should  confirm  all  these  injunctions  ;  I  could  not 
understand  why  he  did  so.  But  I  allowed  the  ques- 
tion to  pass  without  solution,  and  accepted  with 
confidence  the  explanations  inculcated  in  my  infancy, 


52  MY  RELIGION. 

—  that  the  two  laws  were  equally  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  they  were  in  perfect  accord,  and 
that  Jesus  confirmed  the  law  of  Moses  while  com- 
pleting and  amplifying  it.  I  did  not  concern  myself 
with  accounting  for  the  process  of  this  amplification , 
with  the  solution  of  the  contradictions  apparent 
throughout  the  whole  Gospel,  in  verses  17-20  of 
the  fifth  chapter,  in  the  words,  "  But  I  say  unto 
you." 

Now  that  I  understood  the  clear  and  simple  mean- 
ing of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  I  saw  clearly  that  the 
two  laws  are  directly  opposed  to  one  another ;  that 
they  can  never  be  harmonized  ;  that,  instead  of  sup- 
plementing one  by  the  other,  we  must  inevitably 
choose  between  the  two ;  and  that  the  received  ex- 
planation of  the  verses,  Matthew  v.  17-20,  which  had 
impressed  me  hy  their  obscurity,  must  be  incorrect. 
When  I  now  came  to  read  once  more  the  verses 
that  had  before  impressed  me  as  obscure,  I  was 
astonished  at  the  clear  and  simple  meaning  which 
was  suddenly  revealed  to  me.  This  meaning  was 
revealed,  not  by  any  combination  and  transposition, 
but  solely  by  rejecting  the  factitious  explanations 
with  which  the  words  had  been  encumbered.  Ac- 
cording to  Matthew,  Jesus  said  (v.  17-18)  :  — 

"  TJiirik  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  tlie  law,  or 
the  prophets  (the  doctrine  of  the  prophets)  :  /  am 
not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  froWj  the  law,  till  all  be 
fulfilled." 


MY  RELIGION.  53 

And  in  verse  20  he  added  :  — 

"For  I  say  unto  you,  That  except  your  righteous- 
ness shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kiyigdom 
of  heaven." 

I  am  not  come  (Jesus  said)  to  destroy  the  eternal 
law  of  whose  fulfilment  your  books  of  prophecy  fore- 
tell. I  am  come  to  teach  you  the  fulfilment  of  the 
eternal  law ;  not  of  the  law  that  your  scribes  and 
pharisees  call  the  divine  law,  but  of  that  eternal 
law  which  is  more  immutable  than  the  earth  and  the 
heavens. 

I  have  expressed  the  idea  in  other  words  in  order 
to  detach  the  thoughts  of  my  readers  from  the  tradi- 
tional false  interpretation.  If  this  false  interpreta- 
tion had  never  existed,  the  idea  expressed  in  the 
verses  could  not  be  rendered  in  a  better  or  more 
definite  manner. 

The  view  that  Jesus  did  not  abrogate  the  old  law 
arises  from  the  arbitrary  conclusion  that  "law"  in 
this  passage  signifies  the  written  law  instead  of  the 
law  eternal,  the  reference  to  the  iota — jot  and  tittle 
—  perhaps  furnishing  the  grounds  for  such  an  opin- 
ion. But  if  Jesus  had  been  speaking  of  the  written 
law,  he  would  have  used  the  expression  "the  law 
and  the  prophets,"  which  he  always  employed  in 
speaking  of  the  written  law ;  here,  however,  he  uses 
a  different  expression,  —  "the  law  or  the  prophets." 
If  Jesus  had  meant  the  written  law,  he  would  have 
used  the  expression,  "the  law  and  the  prophets,"  in 
the  verses  that  follow  and  that  continue  the  thought ; 


54  MY  'RELIGION. 

but  he  says,  briefly,  "the  law."  Moreover,  accord- 
ing to  Luke,  Jesus  made  use  of  the  same  phraseology, 
and  the  context  renders  the  meaning  inevitable. 
According  to  Luke,  Jesus  said  to  the  Pharisees,  who 
assumed  the  justice  of  their  written  law  :  — 

"7e  are  they  which  justify  yourselves  before  men; 
but  God  knoweth your  hearts:  for  that  which  is  highly 
esteemed  among  men  is  abomination  in  the  sight  of 
God.  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John : 
since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and 
every  man  presseth  into  it.  And  it  is  easier  for 
heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to 
fail."     (Luke  xvi.  15-17.) 

In  the  words,  "The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John"  Jesus  abrogated  the  written  law  ;  in  the 
words,  "And  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to 
pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail,"  Jesus  con- 
firmed the  law  eternal.  In  the  first  passage  cited  he 
said,  "  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  that  is,  the  writ- 
ten law;  in  the  second  he  said  "the  law"  simply, 
therefore  the  law  eternal.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the 
eternal  law  is  opposed  to  the  written  law,1  exactly 
as  in  the  context  of  Matthew  where  the  eternal  law 
is  defined  by  the  phrase,  "the  law  or  the  prophets." 

1  More  than  this,  as  if  to  do  away  with  all  douht  about  the 
law  to  which  h3  referred,  Jesus  cites  immediately,  in  connec- 
tion with  this  passage,  the  most  decisive  instance  of  the  negation 
of  the  law  of  Moses  by  the  eternal  law,  the  law  of  which  not  the 
smallest  jot  is  to  fail:  "Whosoever  putteth  away  his  wife,  and 
marrieth  another,  committeth  adultery."  (Luke  xvi.  18.)  That 
is,  according  to  the  written  law  divorce  is  permissible ;  according 
to  the  eternal  law  it  is  forbidden. 


MY  RELIGION,  55 

The  history  of  the  variants  of  the  text  of  these 
verses  is  quite  worthy  of  notice.  The  majority  of 
texts  have  simply  "the  law,"  without  the  addition, 
"  and  the  prophets,"  thus  avoiding  a  false  interpre- 
tation in  the  sense  of  the  written  law.  In  other 
texts,  notably  that  of  Tischendorf,  and  in  the  canon- 
ical versions,  we  find  the  word  "prophets"  used, 
not  with  the  conjunction  "and,"  but  with  the  con- 
junction "or,"  —  "the  law  or  the  prophets," — which 
also  excludes  any  question  of  the  written  law,  and 
indicates,  as  the  proper  signification,  the  law  eternal. 
In  several  other  versions,  not  countenanced  by  the 
Church,  we  find  the  word  "prophets  "  used  with  the 
conjunction  "and,"  not  with  "or";  and  in  these 
versions  every  repetition  of  the  words  "  the  law  "  is 
followed  by  the  phrase,  "  and  the  prophets,"  which 
would  indicate  that  Jesus  spoke  only  of  the  written 
law. 

The  history  of  the  commentaries  on  the  passage 
in  question  coincides  with  that  of  the  variants.  The 
only  clear  meaning  is  that  authorized  by  Luke,  — 
that  Jesus  spoke  of  the  eternal  law.  But  among  the 
copyists  of  the  Gospel  were  some  who  desired  that 
the  written  law  of  Moses  should  continue  to  be  re- 
garded as  obligatory.  The}'  therefore  added  to  the 
words  "the  law  "  the  phrase  "and  the  prophets," 
and  thereby  changed  the  interpretation  of  the  text. 

Other  Christians,  not  recognizing  to  the  same  de- 
gree the  authority  of  the  books  of  Moses,  suppressed 
the  added  phrase,  and  replaced  the  particle  koll, 
"and,"  with  rj,  "or"  ;  and  with  this  substitution  the 


56  my  religion: 

passage  was  admitted  to  the  canon.  Nevertheless, 
in  spite  of  the  unequivocal  clearness  of  the  text  as 
thus  written,  the  commentators  perpetuated  the  in- 
terpretation supported  by  the  phrase  which  had  been 
rejected  in  the  canon.  The  passage  evoked  innum- 
erable comments,  which  stray  from  the  true  signifi- 
cation in  proportion  to  the  lack,  on  the  part  of  the 
commentators,  of  fidelity  to  the  simple  and  obvious 
meaning  of  Jesus'  doctrine.  Most  of  them  recog- 
nize the  reading  rejected  by  the  canonical  text. 

To  be  absolute^  convinced  that  Jesus  spoke  only 
of  the  eternal  law,  we  need  only  examine  the  true 
meaning  of  the  word  which  has  given  rise  to  so 
many  false  interpretations.  The  word  "law"  (in 
Greek  yc'/mos,  in  Hebrew  m'lp),  torah)  has  in  all 
languages  two  principal  meanings :  one,  law  in  the 
abstract  sense,  independent  of  formulae  ;  the  other, 
the  written  statutes  which  men  generally  recognize 
as  law.  In  the  Greek  of  Paul's  Epistles  the  distinc- 
tion is  indicated  by  the  use  of  the  article.  Without 
the  article  Paul  uses  vojjlos  the  most  frequently  in  the 
sense  of  the  divine  eternal  law.  By  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  as  in  books  of  Isaiah  and  the  other 
prophets,  fTl'lPli  torah,  is  always  used  in  the  sense 
of  an  eternal  revelation,  a  divine  intuition.  It  was 
not  till  the  time  of  Esdras,  and  later  in  the  Talmud, 
that  "  Torah  "  was  used  in  the  same  sense  in  which 
we  use  the  word  "Bible"  —  with  this  difference, 
that  while  we  have  words  to  distinguish  between  the 
Bible  and  the  divine  law,  the  Jews  employed  the 
same  word  to  express  both  meanings. 


MY  RELIGION.  57 

And  so  Jesus  sometimes  speaks  of  law  as  the 
divine  law  (of  Isaiah  and  the  other  prophets),  in 
which  case  he  confirms  it ;  and  sometimes  in  the 
sense  of  the  written  law  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  which 
case  he  rejects  it.  To  distinguish  the  difference,  he 
always,  in  speaking  of  the  written  law.  adds,  u  and 
the  prophets," or  prefixes  the  word  "your,"  —  "your 
law." 

When  he  says:  "Therefore  all  things  whatso- 
ever ye  tvould  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even 
so  to  them :  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prop7iets  " 
(Matt.  vii.  12),  he  speaks  of  the  written  law. 
The  entire  written  law,  he  says,  may  be  reduced  to 
this  expression  of  the  eternal  law,  and  by  these 
words  he  abrogated  the  written  law.  When  he  says, 
"  The  law  and  the  prophets  ivere  until  John"  (Luke 
xvi.  16),  he  speaks  of  the  written  law,  and  abrogates 
it.  When  he  says,  "  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law, 
and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth  the  law  "  (John  vii.  19), 
"It  is  also  ivritten  in  your  law"  (John  viii.  17), 
"  that  the  word  might  be  fulfilled  that  is  written  in 
their  law"  (John  xv.  25),  he  speaks  of  the  written 
law,  the  law  whose  authority  he  denied,  the  law  that 
condemned  him  to  death:  "The  Jews  answered 
him,  We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law  he  ought  to  die  " 
(John  xix.  7).  It  is  plain  that  this  Jewish  law, 
which  authorized  condemnation  to  death,  was  not 
the  law  of  Jesus.  But  when  Jesus  says,  "  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  teach  you  the 
fulfilment  of  the  law ;  for  nothing  of  this  law  shall 
be   changed,   but   all   shall  be   fulfilled,"   then   he 


58  MY  RELIGION. 

speaks,  not  of  the  written  law,  but  of  the  divine  and 
eternal  law. 

Admit  that  all  this  is  merely  formal  proof ;  admit 
that  I  have  carefully  combined  contexts  and  vari- 
ants, and  excluded  everything  contrary  to  my 
theory  ;  admit  that  the  commentators  of  the  Church 
are  clear  and  convincing,  that,  in  fact,  Jesus  did 
not  abrogate  the  law  of  Moses,  but  upheld  it  — 
admit  this :  then  the  question  is,  what  were  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  ? 

According  to  the  Church,  he  taught  that  he  was 
the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  the  Son  of  God, 
and  that  he  came  into  the  world  to  atone  by  his 
xieath  for  Adam's  sin.  Those,  however,  who  have 
read  the  Gospels  know  that  Jesus  taught  nothing  of 
the  sort,  or  at  least  spoke  but  very  vaguely  on  these 
topics.  The  passages  in  which  Jesus  affirms  that 
he  is  the  second  person  of  the  Trinit}*,  and  that  he 
was  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  humanity,  form  a  very  in- 
considerable and  very  obscure  portion  of  the  Gospels. 
In  what,  then,  does  the  rest  of  Jesus'  doctrine  con- 
sist? It  is  impossible  to  deny,  for  all  Christians 
have  recognized  the  fact,  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
aims  summarily  to  regulate  the  lives  of  men,  to 
teach  them  how  they  ought  to  live  with  regard  to 
one  another.  But  to  realize  that  Jesus  taught  men 
a  new  way  of  life,  we  must  have  some  idea  of  the 
condition  of  the  people  to  whom  his  teachings  were 
addressed. 

When  we  examine  into  the  social  development  of 
the  Russians,  the  English,  the  Chinese,  the  Indians, 


MY  RELIGION.  59 

or  even  the  races  of  insular  savages,  we  find  that 
each  people  invariably  has  certain  practical  rules  or 
laws  which  govern  its  existence ;  consequently,  if 
any  one  would  inculcate  a  new  law,  he  must  at  the 
same  time  abolish  the  old  ;  in  any  race  or  nation 
this  would  be  inevitable.  Laws  that  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  regard  as  almost  sacred  would  assuredly 
be  abrogated  ;  with  us,  perhaps,  it  might  happen 
that  a  reformer  who  taught  a  new  law  would  abolish 
only  our  civil  laws,  the  official  code,  our  administra- 
tive customs,  without  touching  what  we  consider  as 
our  divine  laws,  although  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  such  could  be  the  case.  But  with  the  Jewish 
people,  who  had  but  one  law,  and  that  recognized 
as  divine,  —  a  law  which  enveloped  life  to  its 
minutest  details,  —  what  could  a  reformer  accom- 
plish if  he  declared  in  advance  that  the  existing  law 
was  inviolable? 

Admit  that  this  argument  is  not  conclusive,  and 
try  to  interpret  the  words  of  Jesus  as  an  affirmation 
of  the  entire  Mosaic  law ;  in  that  case,  who  were 
the  Pharisees,  the  scribes,  the  doctors  of  the  law, 
denounced  by  Jesus  during  the  whole  of  his  minis- 
try ?  Who  were  they  that  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  and,  their  High  Priests  at  their  head,  crucified 
him?  If  Jesus  approved  the  law  of  Moses,  where 
were  the  faithful  followers  of  that  law,  who  prac- 
tised it  sincerely,  and  must  thereby  have  obtained 
Jesus'  approval?  Is  it  possible  that  there  was  not 
one  such?  The  Pharisees,  we  are  told,  constituted 
a  sect;  where,  then,  were  the  righteous? 


60  MY  RELIGION. 

In  the  Gospel  of  John  the  enemies  of  Jesns  are 
spoken  of  directly  as  "the  Jews."  They  are  op- 
posed to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus ;  the}'  are  hostile 
because  they  are  Jews.  But  it  is  not  only  the  Phar- 
isees and  the  Sadducees  who  figure  in  the  Gospels 
as  the  enemies  of  Jesus  :  we  also  find  mention  of 
the  doctors  of  the  law,  the  guardians  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  the  scribes,  the  interpreters  of  the  law,  the 
ancients,  those  who  are  always  considered  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people's  wisdom.  Jesus  said, 
"  I  am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to 
repentance"  to  change  their  way  of  life  (//.fravota) . 
But  where  were  the  righteous  ?  Was  Nicodemus  the 
only  one?  He  is  represented  as  a  good,  but  mis- 
guided man. 

We  are  so  habituated  to  the  singular  opinion  that 
Jesus  was  crucified  by  the  Pharisees  and  a  number 
of  Jewish  shopkeepers,  that  we  never  think  to  ask, 
Where  were  the  true  Jews,  the  good  Jews,  the  Jews 
that  practised  the  law?  When  we  have  once  pro- 
pounded this  query,  everything  becomes  perfectly 
clear.  Jesus,  whether  he  was  God  or  man,  brought 
his  doctrine  to  a  people  possessing  rules,  called  the 
divine  law,  governing  their  whole  existence.  How 
could  Jesus  avoid  denouncing  that  law  ? 

Every  prophet,  every  founder  of  a  religion,  inev- 
itably meets,  in  revealing  the  divine  law  to  men, 
with  institutions  which  are  regarded  as  upheld  by 
the  laws  of  God.  He  cannot,  therefore,  avoid  a 
double  use  of  the  word  "law,"  which  expresses 
what  his  hearers  wrongfully  consider  the  law  of  God 


MY  RELIGION.  CI 

(-'your  law"),  and  the  law  he  has  come  to  proclaim, 
the  true  law,  the  divine  and  eternal  law.  A  re- 
former not  only  cannot  avoid  the  use  of  the  word  in 
this  manner ;  often  he  does  not  wish  to  avoid  it,  but 
purposely  confounds  the  two  ideas,  thus  indicating 
that,  in  the  law  confessed  by  those  whom  he  would 
convert,  there  are  still  some  eternal  truths.  Every 
reformer  takes  these  truths,  so  well  known  to  his 
hearers,  as  the  basis  of  his  teaching.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  Jesus  did  in  addressing  the  Jews,  by 
whom  the  two  laws  were  vaguely  grouped  together 
as  "  Tor  ah."  Jesus  recognized  that  the  Mosaic 
law,  and  still  more  the  prophetical  books,  especially 
the  writings  of  Isaiah,  whose  words  he  constantly 
quotes,  —  Jesus  recognized  that  these  contained 
divine  and  eternal  truths  in  harmony  with  the  eter- 
nal law,  and  these  he  takes  as  the  basis  of  his  own 
doctrine.  This  method  was  man}*  times  referred  to 
Irv  Jesus  ;  thus  he  said,  "  What  is  written  in  the  law? 
how  readest  thouV  (Luke  x.  26).  That  is,  one 
may  find  eternal  truth  in  the  law,  if  one  reads  it 
aright.  And  more  than  once  he  affirms  that  the 
commandments  of  the  Mosaic  law,  to  love  the  Lord 
and  one's  neighbor,  are  also  commandments  of  the 
eternal  law.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  parables  by 
which  Jesus  explained  the  meaning  of  his  doctrine 
to  his  disciples,  he  pronounced  words  that  have  a 
bearing  upon  all  that  precedes  :  — 

"Therefore  every  scribe  which  is  instructed  unto  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  (the  truth)  is  like  unto  a  man  that 
is  a  householder,  which  bringeth  forth  out  of  his  treas- 


62  MY  RELIGION. 

ure    (without    distinction)    things    new    and    old.'' 
(Matt.  xiii.  52.) 

The  Church  understands  these  words,  as  they 
were  understood  by  Irenaeus  ;  but  at  the  same  time, 
in  defiance  of  the  true  signification,  it  arbitrarily 
attributes  to  them  the  meaning  that  everything  old 
is  sacred.  The  manifest  meaning  is  this  :  He  who 
seeks  for  the  good,  takes  not  only  the  new,  but  also 
the  old;  and  because  a  thing  is  old,  he  does  not 
therefore  reject  it.  By  these  words  Jesus  meant 
that  he  did  not  deny  what  was  eternal  in  the  old  law 
But  when  they  spoke  to  him  of  the  whole  law,  or  of 
the  formalities  exacted  by  the  old  law,  his  reply  was 
that  new  wine  should  not  be  put  into  old  bottles. 
Jesus  could  not  affirm  the  whole  law ;  neither  could 
he  deny  the  entire  teachings  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  —  the  law  which  says,  "  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself"  the  prophets  whose  words  often  served 
to  express  his  own  thoughts.  And  yet,  in  place  of 
this  clear  and  simple  explanation  of  Jesus'  words, 
we  are  offered  a  vague  interpretation  which  intro- 
duces needless  contradictions,  which  reduces  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  to  nothingness,  and  which  re-es- 
tablishes the  doctrine  of  Moses  in  ail  i*  3  savage 
cruelty. 

Commentators  of  the  Church,  particularly  those 
who  have  written  since  the  fifth  century,  tell  us  that 
Jesus  did  not  abolish  the  written  law ;  that,  on  the 
contrar}-,  he  affirmed  it.  But  in  what  way?  How 
is  it  possible  that  the  law  of  Jesus  should  haimonize 
with  the  law  of  Moses  ?     To  these  inquiries  we  get 


MY  RELIGION-.  63 

no  response.  The  commentators  all  make  use  of  a 
verbal  juggle  to  the  effect  that  Jesus  fulfilled  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  that  the  sayings  of  the  prophets  were 
fulfilled  in  his  person  ;  that  Jesus  fulfilled  the  law  as 
our  mediator  by  our  faith  in  him.  And  the  essen- 
tial question  fpr  every  believer  —  How  to  harmon- 
ize two  conflicting  laws,  each  designed  to  regulate 
the  lives  of  men?  —  is  left  without  the  slightest  at- 
tempt at  explanation.  Thus  the  contradiction  be- 
tween the  verse  where  it  is  said  that  Jesus  did  not 
come  to  destro}T  the  law,  but  to  fulfil  the  law,  and 
Jesus'  saying,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said, 
An  eye  for  an  eye  .  .  .  Bat  I  say  unto  you,"  —  the 
contradiction  between  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the 
very  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  doctrine,  —  is  left  without 
any  mitigation. 

Let  those  who  are  iuterested  in  the  question  look 
through  the  Church  commentaries  touching  this  pas- 
sage from  the  time  of  Chrysostom  to  our  day.  After 
a  perusal  of  the  voluminous  explanations  offered, 
they  will  be  convinced  not  only  of  the  complete 
absence  of  any  solution  for  the  contradiction,  but  of 
the  presence  of  a  new,  factitious  contradiction 
arising  in  its  place.  Let  us  see  what  Chrysostom 
says  in  reply  to  those  who  reject  the  law  of 
Moses  :  — 

"  He  made  this  law,  not  that  we  might  strike  out 
one  another's  e}7es,  but  that  fear  of  suffering  by 
others  might  restrain  us  from  doing  any  such  thing 
to  them.  As  therefore  He  threatened  the  Ninevites 
with  overthrow,  not  that  He   might  destroy  them 


64  MY  RELIGION. 

(for  had  that  been  His  will,  He  ought  to  have  been 
silent),  but  that  He  might  by  fear  make  them 
better,  and  so  quiet  His  wrath :  so  also  hath  He 
appointed  a  punishment  for  those  who  wantonly 
assail  the  eyes  of  others,  that  if  good  principle  dis- 
pose them  not  to  refrain  from  such  cruelt}7,  fear  may 
restrain  them  from  injuring  their  neighbors'  sight. 

"  And  if  this  be  cruelty,  it  is  cruelty  also  for  the 
murderer  to  be  restrained,  and  the  adulterer  checked. 
But  these  are  the  sayings  of  senseless  men,  and  of 
those  that  are  mad  to  the  extreme  of  madness.  For 
I,  so  far  from  saying  that  this  comes  of  cruelty, 
should  say  that  the  contrary  to  this  would  be  unlaw- 
ful, according  to  men's  reckoning.  And  whereas 
thou  sayest,  '  Because  He  commanded  to  pluck  out 
an  eye  for  an  eye,  therefore  He  is  cruel' ;  I  say  that 
if  He  had  not  given  this  commandment,  then  He 
would  have  seemed,  in  the  judgment  of  most  men, 
to  be  that  which  thou  sayest  He  is." 

Chrysostom  clearly  recognized  the  law,  An  eye  for 
an  eye,  as  divine,  and  the  contrarj'  of  that  law,  that 
is,  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  Resist  not  evil,  as  an  iniq- 
uity. "For  let  us  suppose,"  says  Chrysostom  fur- 
ther :  — 

"  For  let  us  suppose  that  this  law  had  been  alto- 
gether done  away,  and  that  no  one  feared  the  pun- 
ishment ensuing  thereupon,  but  that  license  had 
been  given  to  all  the  wicked  to  follow  their  own  dis- 
positions in  all  security,  to  adulterers,  and  to  mur- 
derers, to  perjured  persons,  and  to  parricides  ;  would 
not  all  things  have  been  turned  upside  down  ?  would 


my  religion:  65 

not  cities,  market-places  and  houses,  sea  and  land, 
and  the  whole  world  have  been  filled  with  unnum- 
bered pollutions  and  murders  ?  Every  one  sees  it. 
For  if,  when  there  are  laws,  and  fear,  and  threaten- 
ing, our  evil  dispositions  are  hardly  checked ;  were 
even  this  security  taken  away,  what  is  there  to  pre- 
vent men's  choosing  vice  ?  and  what  degree  of  mis- 
chief would  not  then  come  revelling  upon  the  whole 
of  human  life  ? 

u  The  rather,  since  cruelty  lies  not  only  in  allow- 
ing the  bad  to  do  what  they  will,  bat  in  another 
thing  too  quite  as  much,  —  to  overlook,  and  leave 
uncared  for,  him  who  hath  done  no  wrong,  but  who 
is  without  cause  or  reason  suffering  ill.  For  tell 
me  ;  were  any  one  to  gather  together  wicked  men 
from  all  quarters,  and  arm  them  with  swords,  and 
bid  them  go  about  the  whole  city,  and  massacre  all 
that  came  in  their  way,  could  there  be  anything 
more  like  a  wild  beast  than  he  ?  And  what  if  some 
others  should  bind,  and  confine  with  the  utmost 
strictness,  those  whom  that  man  had  armed,  and 
should  snatch  from  those  lawless  hands  them  who 
were  on  the  point  of  being  butchered ;  could  any- 
thing be  greater  humanity  than  this  ?  " 

Chrysostom  does  not  say  what  would  be  the  esti- 
mate of  these  others  in  the  opinion  of  the  wicked. 
And  what  if  these  others  were  themselves  wicked 
and  cast  the  innocent  into  prison?  Chrysostom 
continues :  — 

**  Now  then,  I  bid  thee  transfer  these  examples  to 
the  Law  likewise ;  for  He  that  commands  to  pluck 


66  MY  RELIGION. 

out  an  eye  for  an  eye  hath  laid  the  fear  as  a  kind  of 
strong  chain  upon  the  souls  of  the  bad,  and  so 
resembles  him  who  detains  those  assassins  in  prison  ; 
whereas  he  who  appoints  no  punishment  for  them, 
doth  all  but  arm  them  by  such  security,  and  acts  the 
part  of  that  other,  who  was  putting  the  swords  in 
their  hands,  and  letting  them  loose  over  the  whole 
city."  ("  Homilies  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew," 
xvi.) 

If  Chrysostom  had  understood  the  law  of  Jesus, 
he  would  have  said,  Who  is  it  that  strikes  out 
another's  eyes?  who  is  it  that  casts  men  into  prison? 
If  God,  who  made  the  law,  does  this,  then  there  is 
no  contradiction ;  but  it  is  men  who  carry  out  the 
decrees,  and  the  Son  of  God  has  said  to  men  that 
they  must  abstain  from  violence.  God  commanded 
to  strike  out,  and  the  Son  of  God  commanded  not  to 
strike  out.  We  must  accept  one  commandment  or 
the  other ;  and  Chrysostom,  like  all  the  rest  of  the 
Church,  accepted  the  commandment  of  Moses  and 
denied  that  of  the  Christ,  whose  doctrine  he  never- 
theless claims  to  believe. 

Jesus  abolished  the  Mosaic  law,  and  gave  his  own 
law  in  its  place.  To  one  who  really  believes  in 
Jesus  there  is  not  the  slightest  contradiction  ;  such 
an  one  will  pay  no  attention  to  the  law  of  Moses, 
but  will  practise  the  law  of  Jesus,  which  he  believes. 
To  one  who  believes  in  the  law  of  Moses  there  is  no 
contradiction.  The  Jews  looked  upon  the  words  of 
Jesus  as  foolishness,  and  believed  in  the  law  of 
Moses.     The  contradiction  is   only  for  those  who 


MY  RELIGION.  67 

would  follow  the  law  of  Moses  under  the  cover  of 
the  law  of  Jesus  —  for  those  whom  Jesus  denounced 
as  hypocrites,  as  a  generation  of  vipers. 

Instead  of  recognizing  as  divine  truth  the  one  or 
the  other  of  the  two  laws,  the  law  of  Moses  or  that 
of  Jesus,  we  recognize  the  divine  quality  of  both. 
But  when  the  question  comes  with  regard  to  the  acts 
of  every-day  life,  we  reject  the  law  of  Jesus  and 
follow  that  of  Moses.  And  this  false  interpretation, 
when  we  realize  its  importance,  reveals  the  source 
of  that  terrible  drama  which  records  the  struggle 
between  evil  and  good,  between  darkness  and  light. 

To  the  Jewish  people,  trained  to  the  innumerable 
formal  regulations  instituted  by  the  Levites  in  the 
rubric  of  divine  laws,  each  preceded  by  the  words, 
''And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses"  —  to  the  Jewish 
people  Jesus  appeared.  He  found  everything,  to 
the  minutest  detail,  prescribed  by  rule  ;  not  only  the 
relation  of  man  with  God,  but  his  sacrifices,  his 
feasts,  his  fasts,  his  social,  civil,  and  family  duties, 
the  details  of  personal  habits,  circumcision,  the  puri- 
fication of  the  body,  of  domestic  utensils,  of  cloth- 
ing —  all  these  regulated  by  laws  recognized  as  com- 
mandments of  God,  and  therefore  as  divine. 

Excluding  the  question  of  Jesus'  divine  mission, 
what  could  any  prophet  or  reformer  do  who  wished 
to  establish  his  own  doctrines  among  a  people  so 
enveloped  in  formalism  —  what  but  abolish  the  law 
by  which  all  these  details  were  regulated?  Jesus 
selected  from  what  men  considered  as  the  law  of 
God  the  portions  which  were  really  divine ;  he  took 


68  MY  RELIGION. 

what  served  his  purpose,  rejected  the  rest,  and  upon 
this  foundation  established  the  eternal  law.  It  was 
not  necessary  to  abolish  all,  but  inevitable  to  abro- 
gate much  that  was  looked  upon  as  obligatory.  This 
Jesus  did,  and  was  accused  of  destroying  the  divine 
law ;  for  this  he  was  condemned  and  put  to  death. 
But  his  doctrine  was  cherished  by  his  disciples, 
traversed  the  centuries,  and  is  transmitted  to  other 
peoples.  Under  these  conditions  it  is  again  hidden 
beneath  heterogeneous  dogmas,  obscure  comments, 
and  factitious  explanations.  Pitiable  human  soph- 
isms replace  the  divine  revelation.  For  the  form- 
ula, "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,"  we  substi- 
tute "  Thus  saith  the  Holy  Spirit."  And  again  for- 
malism hides  the  truth.  Most  astounding  of  all,  the. 
doctrine  of  Jesus  is  amalgamated  with  the  written 
law,  whose  authority  he  was  forced  to  deny^.  This 
Torah,  this  written  law,  is  declared  to  have  been 
inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  spirit  of  truth  ;  and 
thus  Jesus  is  taken  in  the  snare  of  his  own  revela- 
tion—  his  doctrine  is  reduced  to  nothingness. 

This  is  why,  after  eighteen  hundred  years,  it  so 
singularly  happened  that  I  discovered  the  meaning 
of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  some  new  thing.  But 
no;  I  did  not  discover  it ;  I  did  simply  what  all 
must  do  who  seek  after  God  and  His  law  ;  I  sought 
for  the  eternal  law  amid  the  incongruous  elements 
that  men  call  by  that  name. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

WHEN  I  understood  the  law  of  Jesus  as  the 
law  of  Jesus,  and  not  as  the  law  of  Jesus 
and  of  Moses,  when  I  understood  the  commandment 
of  this  law  which  absolutely  abrogated  the  law  of 
Moses,  then  the  Gospels,  before  to  me  so  obscure, 
diffuse,  and  contradictory,  blended  into  a  harmoni- 
ous whole,  the  substance  of  whose  doctrine,  until 
then  incomprehensible,  I  found  to  be  formulated  in 
terms  simple,  clear,  and  accessible  to  every  searcher 
after  truth.1 

Throughout  the  Gospels  we  are  called  upon  to 
consider  the  commandments  of  Jesus  and  the  neces- 
sity of  practising  them.  All  the  theologians  dis- 
cuss the  commandments  of  Jesus ;  but  what  are 
these  commandments  ?  I  did  not  know  before.  I 
thought  that  the  commandment  of  Jesus  was  to  love 
God,  and  one's  neighbor  as  one's  self.  I  did  not 
see  that  this  could  not  be  a  new  commandment  of 
Jesus,  since  it  was  given  by  them  of  old  in  Deuter- 
onomy and  Leviticus.     The  words  :  — 

4 '  Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least 
commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be 
called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  tvhoso- 

1  Matt.  v.  21-48,  especially  38. 


70  MY  RELIGION. 

ever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called 
great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ,"  (Matt.  v.  1(J.)  — 
these  words  I  believed  to  relate  to  the  Mosaic  law. 
But  it  never  had  occurred  to  me  that  Jesus  had 
propounded,  clearly  and  precisely,  new  laws.  I 
did  not  see  that  in  the  passage  where  Jesus  declares, 
"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  icas  said  .  .  .  But  I  say  unto 
you,"  he  formulated  a  series  of  very  definite  com- 
mandments —  five  entirety  new,  counting  as  one  the 
two  references  to  the  ancient  law  against  adulterj*. 
I  had  heard  of  the  beatitudes  of  Jesus  and  of  their 
number ;  their  explanation  and  enumeration  had 
formed  a  part  of  my  religious  instruction ;  but  the 
commandments  of  Jesus — I  had  never  heard  them 
spoken  of.  To  my  great  astonishment,  I  now  dis- 
covered them  for  myself.  In  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Matthew^  I  found  these  verses  :  — 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old 
time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill;  and  whosoever  shall  kill 
shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment:  But  I  say  unto 
you,  That  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  without 
a  cause  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment :  and  who- 
soever shall  say  to  his  brother,  Baca,  shall  be  in  dan- 
ger of  the  council:  but  tvhosoever  shall  say,  Thou 
fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  Gehenna  of  fire. 
Therefore  if  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and  there 
rememberest  that  thy  brother  hath  aught  against  thee; 
Leave  there  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way ; 
first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,  and  then  come  and 
offer  thy  gift.  Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly, 
while  thou  art  in  the  way  with  him;  lest  at  any  time 


MY  RELIGION.  71 

the  adversary  deliver  thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge, 
deliver  thee  to  the  officer,  and  thou  be  cast  into  prison. 
Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  Thou  shalt  by  no  means  come 
out  thence,  till  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost  farthing.1* 
(Matt.  v.  21-26.) 

When  I  understood  the  commandment,  "  Resist 
not  evil,"  it  seemed  to  me  that  these  verses  must 
have  a  meaning  as  clear  and  intelligible  as  has  the 
commandment  just  cited.  The  meaning  I  had  for- 
merly given  to  the  passage  was,  that  every  one 
ought  to  avoid  angry  feelings  against  others,  ought 
never  to  utter  abusive  language,  and  ought  to  live  in 
peace  with  all  men,  without  exception.  But  there 
was  in  the  text  a  phrase  which  excluded  this  mean- 
ing, "Whosoever  shall  be  angry  with  his  brother 
without  a  cause"  —  the  words  could  not  then  be 
an  exhortation  to  absolute  peace.  I  was  greatly 
perplexed,  and  I  turned  to  the  commentators,  the 
theologians,  for  the  removal  of  my  doubts.  To  my 
surprise  I  found  that  the  commentators  were  chiefly 
occupied  with  the  endeavor  to  define  under  what 
conditions  anger  was  permissible.  All  the  commen- 
tators of  the  Church  dwelt  upon  the  qualifying 
phrase  "  without  a  cause,"  and  explained  the  mean- 
ing to  be  that  one  must  not  be  offended  without  a 
reason,  that  one  must  not  be  abusive,  but  that  anger 
is  not  always  unjust ;  and,  to  confirm  their  view, 
they  quoted  instances  of  anger  on  the  part  of  saints 
and  apostles.  I  saw  plainly  that  the  commentators 
who  authorized  anger  "  for  the  glory  of  God  "  as 
not  reprehensible,  although  entirely  contrary  to  the 


72  MY  RELIGION. 

spirit  of  the  Gospel,  based  their  argument  on  the 
phrase  "without  a  cause,"  in  the  twenty-second 
verse.  These  words  change  entirely  the  meaning  of 
the  passage. 

Be  not  angry  without  cause  ?  Jesus  exhorts  us  to 
pardon  every  one,  to  pardon  without  restriction  or 
limit.  He  pardoned  all  who  did  him  wrong,  and 
chided  Peter  for  being  angry  with  Malchus  when  the 
former  sought  to  defend  his  Master  at  the  time  of 
the  betrayal,  when,  if  at  any  time,  it  would  seem 
that  anger  might  have  been  justifiable.  And  yet 
did  this  same  Jesus  formally  teach  men  not  to  be 
angry  "without  a  cause,"  and  thereby  sanction 
anger  for  a  cause?  Did  Jesus  enjoin  peace  upon  all 
men,  and  then,  in  the  phrase  "without  a  cause," 
interpolate  the  reservation  that  this  rule  did  not 
apply  to  all  cases ;  that  there  were  circumstances 
under  which  one  might  be  angry  with  a  brother,  and 
so  give  the  commentators  the  right  to  say  that  anger 
is  sometimes  expedient? 

But  who  is  to  decide  when  anger  is  expedient  and 
when  it  is  not  expedient?  I  never  yet  encountered 
an  angry  person  who  did  not  believe  his  wrath  to  be 
justifiable.  Every  one  who  is  angry  thinks  anger 
legitimate  and  serviceable.  Evidently  the  qualify- 
ing phrase  "without  a  cause"  destroj's  the  entire 
force  of  the  verse.  And  yet  there  were  the  words 
in  the  sacred  text,  and  1  could  not  efface  them. 
The  effect  was  the  same  as  if  the  word  "  good"  had 
been  added  to  the  phrase.  "Love  thy  neighbor"  — 
love  thy  good  neighbor,  the  neighbor  that  agrees 
with  thee ! 


MY  RELIGION.  73 

The  entire  signification  of  the  passage  was  changed 
by  this  phrase,  "  without  a  cause."  Verses  23  and 
24,  which  exhort  us  to  be  reconciled  with  all  men 
before  appealing  for  divine  aid,  also  lost  their  direct 
and  imperative  meaning  and  acquired  a  conditional 
import  through  the  influence  of  the  foregoing  quali- 
fication. It  had  seemed  to  me,  however,  that  Jesus 
forbade  all  anger,  all  evil  sentiment,  and,  that  it 
might  not  continue  in  our  hearts,  exhorted  us  before 
entering  into  communion  with  God  to  ask  ourselves 
if  there  were  any  person  who  might  be  angry  with 
us.  If  such  were  the  case,  whether  this  anger  were 
with  cause  or  without  cause,  he  commanded  us  to 
be  reconciled.  In  this  manner  I  had  interpreted  the 
passage  ;  but  it  now  seemed,  according  to  the  com- 
mentators, that  the  injunction  must  be  taken  as  a 
conditional  affirmation.  The  commentators  all  ex- 
plained that  we  ought  to  try  to  be  at  peace  with 
everybody  ;  but,  they  added,  if  this  is  impossible, 
if,  actuated  by  evil  instincts,  any  one  is  at  enmity 
with  you,  try  to  be  reconciled  with  him  in  spirit,  in 
idea,  and  then  the  enmity  of  others  will  be  no  obsta- 
cle to  divine  communion. 

Nor  was  this  all.  The  words,  "  Whosoever  shall 
say  to  his  brother,  Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the 
council,"  always  seemed  to  me  strange  and  absurd. 
If  we  are  forbidden  to  be  abusive,  why  this  example 
with  its  ordinary  and  harmless  epithet ;  why  this 
terrible  threat  against  those  that  utter  abuse  so  fee- 
ble as  that  implied  in  the  word  raca,  which  means  a 
good-for-nothing?     All  this  was  obscure  to  me. 


74  MY  RELIGION. 

I  was  convinced  that  I  had  before  me  a  problem 
similar  to  that  which  had  confronted  me  in  the 
words,  '''•Judge  not.'1''  I  felt  that  here  again  the  sim- 
ple, grand,  precise,  and  practical  meaning  of  Jesus 
had  been  hidden,  and  that  the  commentators  were 
groping  in  gloom.  It  seemed  to  me  that  Jesus,  in 
saying,  "  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother  "  could  not  have 
meant,  "  be  reconciled  in  idea,"  —  an  explanation 
not  at  all  clear,  supposing  it  were  true.  I  under- 
stood what  Jesus  meant  when,  using  the  words  of 
the  prophet,  he  said,  "  i"  will  have  mercy,  and  not 
sacrifice;"  that  is,  I  will  that  men  shall  love  one 
another.  If  you  would  have  3-our  acts  acceptable  to 
God,  then,  before  offering  prayer,  interrogate  your 
conscience  ;  and  if  you  find  that  any  one  is  angry 
with  you,  go  and  make  your  peace  with  him,  and 
then  pray  as  you  desire.  After  this  clear  interpre- 
tation, what  was  I  to  understand  by  the  comment, 
"  be  reconciled  in  idea  "  ? 

I  saw  that  what  seemed  to  me  the  only  clear  and 
direct  meaning  of  the  verse  was  destroyed  by  the 
phrase,  "without  a  cause."  If  I  could  eliminate 
that,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  a 
lucid  interpretation.  But  all  the  commentators  were 
united  against  any  such  course  ;  and  the  canonical 
text  authorized  the  rendering  to  which  I  objected. 
I  could  not  drop  these  words  arbitrarily,  and  yet,  if 
they  were  excluded,  everything  would  become  clear. 
I  therefore  sought  for  some  interpretation  which 
would  not  conflict  with  the  sense  of  the  entire  pas- 
sage. 


MY  RELIGION.  75 

I  consulted  the  dictionary.  In  ordinary  Greek, 
the  word  ei/o}  means  "  heedlessly,  inconsiderately.'* 
I  tried  to  find  some  term  that  would  not  destroy  the 
sense;  but  the  words,  "without  a  cause,"  plainly 
had  the  meaning  attributed  to  them.  In  New  Tes- 
tament Greek  the  signification  of  ei/07  is  exactly  the 
same.  I  consulted  the  concordances.  The  word 
occurs  but  once  in  the  Gospels,  namely,  in  this  pas- 
sage. In  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  xv.  2, 
it  occurs  in  exactly  the  same  sense.  It  is  impossi- 
ble to  interpret  it  otherwise,  and  if  we  accept  it, 
we  must  conclude  that  Jesus  uttered  in  vague  words 
a  commandment  easily  so  construed  as  to  be  of  no 
effect.  To  admit  this  seemed  to  me  equivalent  to 
rejecting  the  entire  Gospel.  There  remained  one 
more  resource — was  the  word  to  be  found  in  all  the 
manuscripts?  I  consulted  Griesbach,  who  records 
all  recognized  variants,  and  discovered  to  my  joy 
that  the  passage  in  question  was  not  invariable,  and 
that  the  variation  depended  upon  the  word  eUr}.  In 
most  of  the  Gospel  texts  and  the  citations  of  the 
Fathers,  this  word  does  not  occur.  I  consulted 
Tischendorf  for  the  most  ancient  reading :  the  word 
elKrj  did  not  appear. 

This  word,  so  destructive  to  the  meaning  of  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  is  then  an  interpolation  which  had 
not  crept  into  the  best  copies  of  the  Gospel  as  late 
as  the  fifth  century.  Some  copyist  added  the  word  ; 
others  approved  it  and  undertook  its  explanation. 
Jesus  did  not  utter,  could  not  have  uttered,  this 
terrible  word  ;  and  the  primary  meaning  of  the  pas- 


76  MY  RELIGION. 

sage,  its  simple,  direct,  impressive  meaning,  is  the 
true  interpretation. 

Now  that  I  understood  Jesus  to  forbid  anger,  what- 
ever the  cause,  and  without  distinction  of  persons, 
the  warning  against  the  use  of  the  words  "raca"  and 
"  fool"  had  a  purport  quite  distinct  from  any  prohi- 
bition with  regard  to  the  utterance  of  abusive  epi- 
thets. The  strange  Hebrew  word,  raca,  which  is 
not  translated  in  the  Greek  text,  serves  to  reveal 
the  meaning.  Raca  means,  literally,  "vain,  empty, 
that  which  does  not  exist."  It  was  much  used  by 
the  Hebrews  to  express  exclusion.  It  is  employed 
in  the  plural  form  in  Judges  ix.  4,  in  the  sense, 
"  empty  and  vain."  This  word  Jesus  forbids  us  to 
apply  to  any  one,  as  he  forbids  us  to  use  the  word 
"fool,"  which,  like  "raca,"  relieves  us  of  all  the 
obligations  of  humanity.  We  get  angiy,  we  do  evil 
to  men,  and  then  to  excuse  ourselves  we  say  that 
the  object  of  our  anger  is  an  empty  person,  the 
refuse  of  a  man,  a  fool.  It  is  precisely  such  words 
as  these  that  Jesus  forbids  us  to  apply  to  men.  He 
exhorts  us  not  to  be  angry  with  any  one,  and  not  to 
excuse  our  anger  with  the  plea  that  we  have  to  do 
with  a  vain  person,  a  person  bereft  of  reason. 

And  so  in  place  of  insignificant,  vague,  and  un- 
certain phrases  subject  to  arbitrary  interpretation,  I 
found  in  Matthew  v.  21-26  the  first  commandment 
of  Jesus  :  Live  in  peace  with  all  men.  Do  not  re- 
gard anger  as  justifiable  under  any  circumstances. 
Never  look  upon  a  human  being  as  worthless  or  as 
a  fool.     Not  only  refrain  from  anger  yourself,  but 


MY  RELIGION.  77 

do  not  regard  the  anger  of  others  toward  you  as 
vain.  If  any  one  is  angry  with  you,  even  without 
reason,  be  reconciled  to  him,  that  all  hostile  feelings 
may  be  effaced.  Agree  quickly  with  those  that  have 
a  grievance  against  you,  lest  animosity  prevail  to 
your  loss. 

The  first  commandment  of  Jesus  being  thus  freed 
from  obscurity,  I  was  able  to  understand  the  second, 
which  also  begins  with  a  reference  to  the  ancient 
law:  — 

uYe  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old 
time,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery :  But  I  say  unto 
you,  That  ivhosoever  looketh  on  a  ivoman  to  lust  after 
her  hath  committed  adultery  with  her  already  in  his 
heart.  And  if  thy  right  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it  out, 
and  cast  it  from  thee:  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that 
one  of  thy  members  should  perish,  and  not  that  thy 
ivhole  body  should  be  cast  into  hell.  And  if  thy  right 
hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off,  and  cast  it  from  thee:  for 
it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members  should 
perish,  and  not  that  thy  whole  body  should  be  cast  into 
hell.  It  hath  been  said,1  Whosoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife,  saving  for  the  cause  of  fornication,  causeth 
her  to  commit  adultery :  and  ivhosoever  shall  marry 
lier  that  is  divorced  committeth  adultery.  (Matt.  v. 
27-32.) 

By  these  words  I  understood  that  a  man  ought 
not,  even  in  imagination,  to  admit  that  he  could 
approach  any  woman  save  her  to  whom  he  had  once 
been  united,  and  her  he  might  never  abandon  to 

1  Deut.  xxiv.  1, 


78  MY  RELIGION. 

take  another,  although  permitted  to  do  so  by  the 
Mosaic  law. 

In  the  first  commandment,  Jesus  counselled  us  to 
extinguish  the  germ  of  anger,  and  illustrated  his 
meaning  by-  the  fate  of  the  man  who  is  delivered  to 
the  judges ;  in  the  second  commandment,  Jesus 
declares  that  debauchery  arises  from  the  disposition 
of  men  and  women  to  regard  one  another  as  instru- 
ments of  voluptuousness,  and,  this  being  so,  we 
ought  to  guard  against  every  idea  that  excites  to 
sensual  desire,  and,  once  united  to  a  woman,  never 
to  abandon  her  on  any  pretext,  for  women  thus 
abandoned  are  sought  by  other  men,  and  so  debauch- 
ery is  introduced  into  the  world. 

The  wisdom  of  this  commandment  impressed  me 
profoundly.  It  would  suppress  all  the  evils  in  the 
world  that  result  from  the  sexual  relations.  Con- 
vinced that  license  in  the  sexual  relations  leads  to 
contention,  men,  in  obedience  to  this  injunction, 
would  avoid  every  cause  for  voluptuousness,  and, 
knowing  that  the  law  of  humanity  is  to  live  in 
couples,  would  so  unite  themselves,  and  never 
destroy  the  bond  of  union.  All  the  evTils  arising 
from  dissensions  caused  by  sexual  attraction  would 
be  suppressed,  since  there  would  be  neither  men  nor 
women  deprived  of  the  sexual  relation. 

But  I  was  much  more  impressed,  as  I  read  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  with  the  words,  "  Saving  tor 
the  cause  of  fornication,"  which  permitted  a  man  to 
'repudiate  his  wife  in  case  of  infidelity.  The  very 
form  in  which  the  idea  was  expressed  seemed  to  me 


MY  RELIGION.  79 

unworthy  of  the  dignity  of  the  occasion,  for  here,  side 
by  side  with  the  profound  truths  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  occurred,  like  a  note  in  a  criminal  code, 
this  strange  exception  to  the  general  rule  ;  but  I 
shall  not  dwell  upon  the  question  of  form  ;  I  shall 
speak  only  of  the  exception  itself,  so  entirely  in 
contradiction  with  the  fundamental  idea. 

I  consulted  the  commentators ;  all,  Chrysostora 
and  the  others,  even  authorities  on  exegesis  like 
Reuss,  all  recognized  the  meaning  of  the  words  to 
be  that  Jesus  permitted  divorce  in  case  of  infidelity 
on  the  part  of  the  woman,  and  that,  in  the  exhorta- 
tion against  divorce  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of 
Matthew,  the  same  words  had  the  same  signification. 
I  read  the  thirty-second  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter 
again  and  again,  and  reason  refused  to  accept  the 
interpretation.  To  verify  my  doubts  I  consulted  the 
other  portions  of  the  New  Testament  texts,  and  I 
found  in  Matthew  (xix.),  Mark  (x.),  Luke  (xvi.), 
and  in  the  first  epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians, 
affirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  indissolubility  of 
marriage.     In  Luke  (xvi.  18)  it  is  said  :  — 

"  WJiosoever  putteth  aivay  his  wife,  and  marrieth 
another,  committeth  adultery :  and  whosoever  marri- 
eth her  that  is  put  away  from  her  husband  committeth 
adultery." 

In  Mark  (x.  5-12)  the  doctrine  is  also  proclaimed 
without  any  exception  whatever  :  — 

' '  For  the  hardness  of  your  heart  he  [Moses]  wrote 
you  this  precept.  But  from  the  beginning  of  the 
creation  God  made  them  male  and  female.     For  this 


80  MY  RELIGION. 

cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and 
cleave  to  his  wife;  And  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh: 
so  then  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one  flesh.  Wliat 
therefore  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put 
asunder.  And  in  the  house  his  disciples  asked  him 
again  of  the  same  matter.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Whosoever  shall  put  aicay  his  wife,  and  marry 
another,  committeth  adultery  against  her.  And  if  a 
woman  shall  put  away  hen  husband,  and  be  married 
to  another,  she  committeth  adultery." 

The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  Matt.  xix.  4-9. 
Paul,  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (vii. 
1-11),  develops  systematically  the  idea  that  the 
only  way  of  preventing  debauchery  is  that  every  man 
have  his  own  wife,  and  every  woman  have  her  own 
husband,  and  that  they  mutually  satisfy  the  sexual 
instinct;  then  he  says,  without  equivocation,  "Let 
not  the  wife  depart  from  her  husband :  But  and  if  she 
depart,  let  her  remain  unmarried,  or  be  reconciled  to 
her  husband :  and  let  not  the  husband  put  away  his 
wife." 

According  to  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  Paul,  divorce 
is  forbidden.  It  is  forbidden  by  the  assertion 
repeated  in  two  of  the  Gospels,  that  husband  and 
wife  are  one  flesh  whom  God  hath  joined  together. 
It  is  forbidden  by  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  who  exhorts 
us  to  pardon  every  one,  without  excepting  the  adul- 
terous woman.  It  is  forbidden  by  the  general  sense 
of  the  whole  passage,  which  explains  that  divorce  is 
provocative  of  debauchery,  and  for  this  reason  that 
divorce  with  an  adulterous  woman  is  prohibited. 


MY  UELIGION.  81 

Upon  what,  then,  is  based  the  opinion  that  divorce 
is  permissible  in  case  of  infidelity  on  the  part  of  the 
woman  ?  Upon  the  words  which  had  so  impressed 
me  in  Matt.  v.  32  ;  the  words  every  one  takes  to 
mean  that  Jesus  permits  divorce  in  case  of  adultery 
by  the  woman ;  the  words,  repeated  in  Matt.  xix. 
9,  in  a  number  of  copies  of  the  Gospel  text,  and 
by  many  Fathers  of  the  Church,  —  the  words, 
"  unless  for  the  cause  of  adultery."  I  studied  these 
words  carefully  anew.  For  a  long  time  I  could  not 
understand  them.  It  seemed  to  me  that  there  must 
be  a  defect  in  the  translation,  and  an  erroneous 
exegesis ;  but  where  was  the  source  of  the  error  ? 
I  could  not  find  it ;  and  yet  the  error  itself  was  very 
plain. 

In  opposition  to  the  Mosaic  law,  which  declares 
that  if  a  man  take  an  aversion  to  his  wife  he  may 
write  her  a  bill  of  divorcement  and  send  her  out  of 
his  house  —  in  opposition  to  this  law  Jesus  is  made 
to  declare,  "But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever 
shall  put  away  his  wife,  saving  for  the  cause  of  for- 
nication, causeth  her  to  commit  adultery"  I  saw 
nothing  in  these  words  to  allow  us  to  affirm  that 
divorce  was  either  permitted  or  forbidden.  It  is 
said  that  whoever  shall  put  away  his  wife  causes  her 
to  coznmit  adultery,  and  then  an  exception  is  made 
with  regard  to  a  woman  guilty  of  adultery.  This 
exception,  which  throws  the  guilt  of  marital  infidelity 
entirely  upon  the  woman  is,  in  general,  strange  and 
unexpected ;  but  here,  in  relation  to  the  context,  it 
is  simply  absurd,  for  even  the  very  doubtful  mean- 


82  MY  RELIGION. 

ing  which  might  otherwise  be  attributed  to  it  is 
wholly  destroyed.  Whoever  puts  away  his  wife 
exposes  her  to  the  crime  of  adultery,  and  yet  a  man 
is  permitted  to  put  away  a  wife  guilty  of  adultery, 
as  if  a  woman  guilty  of  adultery  would  no  more 
commit  adultery  after  she  were  put  away. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  when  I  had  examined  this 
passage  attentively,  I  found  it  also  to  be  lackiug  in 
grammatical  meaning.  The  words  are,  "Whoever 
shall  put  away  his  wife,  except  for  the  fault  of 
adultery,  exposes  her  to  the  commission  of  adultery," 
—  and  the  proposition  is  complete.  It  is  a  question 
of  the  husband,  of  him  who  in  putting  away  his  wife 
exposes  her  to  the  commission  of  the  crime  of  adul- 
tery ;  what,  then,  is  the  purport  of  the  qualifying 
phrase,  "  except  for  the  fault  of  adultery  "  ?  If  the 
proposition  were  in  this  form :  Whoever  shall  put 
away  his  wife  is  guilty  of  adulter}',  unless  the  wife 
herself  has  been  unfaithful  —  it  would  be  grammati- 
cally correct.  But  as  the  passage  now  stands,  the 
subject  "whoever"  has  no  other  predicate  than  the 
word  "  exposes,"  with  which  the  phrase  "  except 
for  the  fault  of  adultery "  cannot  be  connected. 
What,  then,  is  the  purport  of  this  phrase?  It  is 
plain  that  whether  for  or  without  the  fault  of  adul- 
tery on  the  part  of  the  woman,  the  husband  who 
puts  away  his  wife  exposes  her  to  the  commission  of 
adultery. 

The  proposition  is  analogous  to  the  following  sen- 
tence :  Whoever  refuses  food  to  his  son,  besides  the 
fault  of  spitefulness,  exposes  him  to  the  possibility 


MY  RELIGION.  83 

of  being  cruel.  This  sentence  evidently  cannot 
mean  that  a  father  may  refuse  food  to  his  son  if  the 
latter  is  spiteful.  It  can  only  mean  that  a  father 
who  refuses  food  to  his  son,  besides  being  spiteful 
towards  his  son,  exposes  his  son  to  the  possibility 
of  becoming  cruel.  And  in  the  same  way,  the  Gos- 
pel proposition  would  have  a  meaning  if  we  could 
replace  the  words,  "  the  fault  of  adultery,"  by  liber- 
tinism, debauchery,  or  some  similar  phrase,  express- 
ing not  an  act  but  a  quality. 

And  so  I  asked  myself  if  the  meaning  here  was 
not  simply  that  whoever  puts  away  his  wife,  besides 
being  himself  guilty  of  libertinism  (since  no  one  puts 
away  his  wife  except  to  take  another) ,  exposes  his 
wife  to  the  commission  of  adultery?  If,  in  the 
original  text,  the  word  translated  "  adultery"  or 
''fornication"  had  the  meaning  of  libertinism,  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  would  be  clear.  And  then 
I  met  with  the  same  experience  that  had  happened 
to  me  before  in  similar  instances.  The  text  con- 
firmed my  suppositions  and  entirely  effaced  my 
doubts. 

The  first  thing  that  occurred  to  me  in  reading  the 
text  was  that  the  word  77-opva'a,  translated  in  common 
with  fxotxoia-Oat,  "adultery"  or  "  fornication,"  is  an 
entirely  different  word  from  the  latter.  But  perhaps 
these  two  words  are  used  as  synonyms  in  the  Gos- 
pels ?  I  consulted  the  dictionary,  and  found  that  the 
word  7ropv€ta,  corresponding  in  Hebrew  to  zanah,  in 
Latin  to  fornicatio,  in  German  to  Jiurerei,  in  French 
to  libertinage,  has  a  very  precise  meaning,  and  that 


84  MY  RELIGION. 

it  never  has  signified,  and  never  can  signify,  the  act 
of  adultery,  ehebruch,  as  Luther  and  the  Germans 
after  hirn  have  rendered  the  word.  It  signifies  a 
state  of  depravity,  —  a  quality,  and  not  an  act,  — 
and  never  can  be  properly  translated  by  "  adultery" 
or  "  fornication."  I  found,  moreover,  that  "  adul- 
tery" is  expressed  throughout  the  Gospel,  as  well 
as  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  by  the  word 
fjLOLxevco.  I  had  only  to  correct  the  false  translation, 
which  had  evidently  been  made  intentionally,  to 
render  absolutely  inadmissible  the  meaning  attrib- 
uted by  commentators  to  the  text,  and  to  show  the 
proper  grammatical  relation  of  irop/eia  to  the  subject 
of  the  sentence. 

A  person  acquainted  with  Greek  would  construe 
as  follows:  7rapeKTus,  "except,  outside,"  \6yov, 
c  w  the  matter,  the  cause,"  Tropi/eias,  "  of  libertinism," 
*oi€t,  "  obliges,"  avrjjv,  "  her,"  (ioixu-cOm,  "to  be  an 
adulteress  "  —  which  rendering  gives,  word  for  word, 
Whoever  puts  away  his  wife,  besides  the  fault  of 
libertinism,  obliges  her  to  be  an  adulteress. 

We  obtain  the  same  meaning  from  Matt.  xix.  9. 
When  we  correct  the  unauthorized  translation  of 
7ro/Wa,  by  substituting  "  libertinism"  for  "  fornica- 
tion," we  see  at  once  that  the  phrase  d  fir]  iwi  -rropvda. 
cannot  apply  to  "  wife."  And  as  the  words  7rape/cr6s 
\6yov  7ro/3j/6ia?  could  signify  nothing  else  than  the 
fault  of  libertinism  on  the  part  of  the  husband,  so 
the  words  d  /xr]  m  7ropveia,  in  the  nineteenth  chapter, 
can  have  no  other  than  the  same  meaning.  The 
phrase  d  /xr)  inl  Tropveia  is,  word  for  word,  '*  if  this  is 


M  Y  RELIGION.  85 

not  through  libertinism "  (to  give  one's  self  up  to 
libertinism).  The  meaning  then  becomes  clear. 
Jesus  replies  to  the  theory  of  the  Pharisees,  that  a 
man  who  abandons  his  wife  to  marry  another  with- 
out the  intention  of  giving  himself  up  to  libertinism 
does  not  commit  adultery  —  Jesus  replies  to  this 
theory  that  the  abandonment  of  a  wife,  that  is,  the 
cessation  of  sexual  relations,  even  if  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  libertinism,  but  to  marry  another,  is  none 
the  less  adultery.  Thus  we  come  at  the  simple 
meaning  of  this  commandment  —  a  meaning  which 
accords  with  the  whole  doctrine,  with  the  words  of 
which  it  is  the  complement,  with  grammar,  and  with 
logic.  This  simple  and  clear  interpretation,  harmon- 
izing so  naturally  with  the  doctrine  and  the  words 
from  which  it  was  derived,  I  discovered  after  the 
most  careful  and  prolonged  research.  Upon  a  pre- 
meditated alteration  of  the  text  had  been  based  an 
exegesis  which  destroyed  the  moral,  religious,  logi- 
cal, and  grammatical  meaning  of  Jesus'  words. 

And  thus  once  more  I  found  a  confirmation  of  the 
terrible  fact  that  the  meaning  of  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  is  simple  and  clear,  that  its  affirmations  are 
emphatic  and  precise,  but  that  commentaries  upon 
the  doctrine,  inspired  by  a  desire  to  sanction  exist- 
ing evil,  have  so  obscured  it  that  determined  effort 
is  demanded  of  him  who  would  know  the  truth.  If 
the  Gospels  had  come  down  to  us  in  a  fragmentary 
condition,  it  would  have  been  easier  (so  it  seemed  to 
me)  to  restore  the  true  meaning  of  the  text  than  to 
find  that  meaning  now,  beneath  the  accumulations 


86  MY  RELIGION. 

of  fallacious  comments  which  have  apparently  no 
purpose  save  to  conceal  the  doctrine  they  are  sup- 
posed to  expound.  With  regard  to  the  passage 
under  consideration,  it  is  plain  that  to  justify  the 
divorce  of  some  Byzantine  emperor  this  ingenious 
pretext  was  employed  to  obscure  the  doctrine  regu- 
lating the  relations  between  the  sexes.  When  we 
have  rejected  the  suggestions  of  the  commentators, 
we  escape  from  the  mist  of  uncertainty,  and  the 
second  commandment  of  Jesus  becomes  precise  and 
clear.  "  Guard  against  libertinism.  Let  every  man 
justified  in  entering  into  the  sexual  relation  have  one 
wife,  and  every  wife  one  husband,  and  under  no 
pretext  whatever  let  this  union  be  violated  by 
either." 

Immediately  after  the  second  commandment  is 
another  reference  to  the  ancient  law,  followed  by  the 
third  commandment :  — 

"Again,  ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said  xby 
them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  forswear  thyself,  but 
shalt  perform  unto  the  Lord  thine  oaths:  But  I  say 
unto  you,  Swear  not  at  all;  neither  by  heaven;  for  it 
is  God's  throne:  Nor  by  the  earth;  for  it  is  his  foot- 
stool: neither  by  Jerusalem;  for  it  is  the  city  of  the 
great  king.  Neither  shalt  thou  swear  by  thy  head, 
because  thou  canst  not  make  one  hair  white  or  black. 
But  let  your  communications  be,  Yea,  yea;  Nay,  nay: 
for  whatsoever  is  more  than  these  cometh  of  evil.1' 
(Matt.  v.  33-37.) 

1  Levit.  xix.  12;  Deut.  xxiii.  21,  34. 


Mi  RELIGION.  87 

This  passage  always  troubled  me  when  I  read  it. 
It  did  not  trouble  me  by  its  obscurity,  like  the  pas- 
sage about  divorce  ;  or  by  conflicting  with  other 
passages,  like  the  authorization  of  anger  for  cause ; 
or  by  the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  obedience,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  command  to  turn  the  other  cheek  ;  — 
it  troubled  me  rather  by  its  very  clearness,  sim- 
plicity, and  practicality.  Side  by  side  with  rules 
whose  magnitude  and  importance  I  felt  profoundly, 
was  this  saying,  which  seemed  to  me  superfluous, 
frivolous,  weak,  and  without  consequence  to  me  or  to 
others.  I  naturally  did  not  swear,  either  by  Jerusa- 
lem, or  by  heaven,  or  by  anything  else,  and  it  cost 
me  not  the  least  effort  to  refrain  from  doing  so  ;  on 
the  other  hand,  it  seemed  to  me  that  whether  I 
swore  or  did  not  swear  could  not  be  of  the  slightest 
importance  to  any  one.  And  desiring  to  find  an 
explanation  of  this  rule,  which  troubled  me  through 
its  very  simplicity,  I  consulted  the  commentators. 
They  were  in  this  case  of  great  assistance  to  me. 

The  commentators  all  found  in  these  words  a  con- 
firmation of  the  third  commandment  of  Moses, — 
not  to  swear  by  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  but,  in  addi- 
tion to  this,  they  explained  that  this  commandment 
of  Jesus  against  an  oath  was  not  always  obligatory, 
and  had  no  reference  whatever  to  the  oath  which 
citizens  are  obliged  to  take  before  the  authorities. 
And  they  brought  together  Scripture  citations,  not 
to  support  the  direct  meaning  of  Jesus'  command- 
ment, but  to  prove  when  it  ought  and  ought  not  to 
be  obeyed.     They  claimed  that  Jesus  had  himself 


88  MY  RELIGION. 

sanctioned  the  oath  in  courts  of  justice  by  his  reply, 
"  Thou  hast  said"  to  the  words  of  the  High  Priest, 
"  I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God;  "  that  the  apostle 
Paul  invoked  God  to  witness  the  truth  of  his  words, 
which  invocation  was  evidently  equivalent  to  an 
oath  ;  that  the  law  of  Moses  proscribing  the  oath 
was  not  abrogated  by  Jesus  ;  and  that  Jesus  forbade 
only  false  oaths,  the  oaths  of  Pharisees  and  hypo- 
crites. When  I  had  read  these  comments,  I  under- 
stood that  unless  I  excepted  from  the  oaths  forbid- 
den by  Jesus  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  State,  the 
commandment  was  as  insignificant  as  superficial, 
and  as  easy  to  practise  as  I  had  supposed. 

And  I  asked  myself  the  question,  Does  this  pas- 
sage contain  an  exhortation  to  abstain  from  an  oath 
that  the  commentators  of  the  Church  are  so  zealous 
to  justify  ?  Does  it  not  forbid  us  to  take  the  oath 
indispensable  to  the  assembling  of  men  into  political 
groups  and  the  formation  of  a  military  caste?  The 
soldier,  that  special  instrument  of  violence,  goes  in 
Russia  by  the  nickname  of  prissaiaga  (sworn  in) . 
If  I  had  asked  the  soldier  at  the  Borovitzky  Gate 
how  he  solved  the  contradiction  between  the  Gospels 
and  military  regulations,  he  would  have  replied  that 
he  had  taken  the  oath,  that  is,  that  he  had  sworn  by 
the  Gospels.  This  is  the  reply  that  soldiers  always 
make.  The  oath  is  so  indispensable  to  the  hor- 
rors of  war  and  armed  coercion  that  in  France, 
where  Christianity  is  out  of  favor,  the  oath  remains 
in  full  force.  If  Jesus  did  not  say  in  so  many 
words,    "Do   not  take   an  oath,"   the    prohibition 


MY  RELIGION.  89 

ought  to  be  a  consequence  of  his  teaching.  He  came 
to  suppress  evil,  and,  if  he  did  not  condemn  the 
oath,  he  left  a  terrible  evil  untouched.  It  may  be 
said,  perhaps,  that  at  the  time  at  which  Jesus  lived 
this  evil  passed  unperceived ;  but  this  is  not  true. 
Epictetus  and  Seneca  declare  against  the  taking  of 
oaths.  A  similar  rule  is  inscribed  in  the  laws  of 
Mani.  The  Jews  of  the  time  of  Jesus  made  pros- 
elytes, and  obliged  them  to  take  the  oath.  How 
could  it  be  said  that  Jesus  did  not  perceive  this  evil 
when  he  forbade  it  in  clear,  direct,  and  circumstan- 
tial terms?  He  said,  "  Sivear  not  at  all."  This 
expression  is  as  simple,  clear,  and  absolute  as  the 
expression,  "  Judge  not,  condemn  not,"  and  is  as 
little  subject  to  explanation  ;  moreover,  he  added  to 
iliis,  "  Let  your  communication  be,  Yea,  yea;  Nay, 
nay :  for  whatsoever  is  more  than  these  cometh  of 
evil." 

If  obedience  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  consists  in 
perpetual  observance  of  the  will  of  God,  how  can  a 
man  swear  to  observe  the  will  of  another  man  or 
other  men  ?  The  will  of  God  cannot  coincide  with 
the  will  of  man.  And  this  is  precisely  what  Jesus 
said  in  Matt.  v.  36  :  — 

"Neither  shalt  thou  swear  by  thy  head,  because 
thou  canst  not  make  one  hair  white  or  black." 

And  the  apostle  James  says  in  his  epistle,  v. 
12:  — 

"But  above  all  things,  my  brethren,  swear  not, 
neither  by  heaven,  neither  by  earth,  neither  by  any 
other  oath:  but  let  your  yea  be  yea;  and  your  nay, 
nay;  lest  ye  fall  into  condemnation." 


90  MY  RELIGION. 

The  apostle  tells  us  clearly  why  we  must  not 
swear :  the  oath  in  itself  may  be  unimportant,  but 
by  it  men  are  condemned,  and  so  we  ought  not  to 
swear  at  all.  How  could  we  express  more  clearly 
the  saying  of  Jesus  and  his  apostle  ? 

My  ideas  had  become  so  confused  that  for  a  long 
time  I  had  kept  before  me  the  question,  Do  the 
words  and  the  meaning  of  this  passage  agree  ?  —  it 
does  not  seem  possible.  But,  after  haying  read  the 
commentaries  attentively,  I  saw  that  the  impossible 
had  become  a  fact.  The  explanations  of  the  com- 
mentators were  in  harmony^  with  those  they  had 
offered  concerning  the  other  commandments  of 
Jesus :  judge  not,  be  not  angry,  do  not  violate  the 
marital  bonds. 

We  have  organized  a  social  order  which  we  cher- 
ish and  look  upon  as  sacred.  Jesus,  whom  we  rec- 
ognize as  God,  comes  and  tells  us  that  our  social 
organization  is  wrong.  We  recognize  him  as  God, 
but  we  are  not  willing  to  renounce  our  social  institu- 
tions. What,  then,  are  we  to  do?  Add,  if  we  can, 
the  words  "without  a  cause"  to  render  void  the 
command  against  anger ;  mutilate  the  sense  of 
another  law,  as  audacious  prevaricators  have  done 
by  substituting  for  the  command  absolutely  forbid- 
ding divorce,  phraseology  which  permits  divorce ; 
and  if  there  is  no  possible  way  of  deriving  an  equiv- 
ocal meaning,  as  in  the  case  of  the  commands, 
"  Judge  not,  condemn  not"  and  "  Swear  not  at  all" 
then  with  the  utmost  effrontery  openly  violate  the 
rule  while  affirming  that  we  obey  it. 


MY  RELIGION.  91 

In  fact,  the  principal  obstacle  to  a  comprehension 
of  the  truth  that  the  Gospel  forbids  all  manner  of 
oaths  exists  in  the  fact  that  our  pseudo-Christian 
commentators  themselves,  with  unexampled  audac- 
ity, take  oath  upon  the  Gospel  itself.  They  make 
men  swear  by  the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  the}T  do 
just  the  contrary  of  what  the  Gospel  commands. 
Why  does  it  never  occur  to  the  man  who  is  made  to 
take  an  oath  upon  the  cross  and  the  Gospel  that  the 
cross  was  made  sacred  only  by  the  death  of  one  who 
forbade  all  oaths,  and  that  in  kissing  the  sacred 
book  he  perhaps  is  pressing  his  lips  upon  the  very 
page  where  is  recorded  the  clear  and  direct  com- 
mandment, "Swear  not  at  all"? 

But  I  was  troubled  no  more  with  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  comprised  in  Matt.  v. 
33-37  when  I  found  the  plain  declaration  of  the 
third  commandment,  that  we  should  take  no  oath, 
since  all  oaths  are  imposed  for  an  evil  purpose. 

After  the  third  commandment  comes  the  fourth 
reference  to  the  ancient  law  and  the  enunciation  of 
the  fourth  commandment :  — 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for 
an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth:  But  1  say  unto  you, 
TJiat  ye  resist  not  evil:  but  whosoever  shall  smite 
thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also. 
And  if  any  man  will  sue  thee  at  the  law,  and  take 
away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak  also.  And 
whosoever  shall  compel  thee  to  go  a  mile,  go  with  him 
twain.     Give  to  him  that  asketh  thee,  and  from  him 


92  ,  MY  RELIGION. 

that  would   borroiv   of   thee   turn   not  thou   away.™ 
(Matt.  v.  38-42.) 

I  have  already  spoken  of  the  direct  and  precise 
meaning  of  these  words  ;  I  have  already  said  that 
we  have  no  reason  whatever  for  basing  upon  them 
an  allegorical  explanation.  The  comments  that 
have  been  made  upon  them,  from  the  time  of  Chrys- 
ostom  to  our  day,  are  really  surprising.  The  words 
are  pleasing  to  every  one,  and  they  inspire  all  man- 
ner of  profound  reflections  save  one,  —  that  these 
words  express  exactly  what  Jesus  meant  to  say. 
The  Church  commentators,  not  at  all  awed  by  the 
authority  of  one  whom  they  recognize  as  God, 
boldty  distort  the  meaning  of  his  words.  They  tell 
us,  of  course,  that  these  commandments  to  bear 
offences  and  to  refrain  from  reprisals  are  directed 
against  the  vindictive  character  of  the  Jews ;  they 
not  only  do  not  exclude  all  general  measures  for  the 
repression  of  evil  and  the  punishment  of  evil-doers, 
but  they  exhort  every  one  to  individual  and  per- 
sonal effort  to  sustain  justice,  to  apprehend  aggres- 
sors, and  to  prevent  the  wicked  from  inflicting  evil 
upon  others,  —  for,  otherwise  (they  tell  us)  these 
spiritual  commandments  of  the  Saviour  would  be- 
come, as  they  became  among  the  Jews,  a  dead  letter, 
and  would  serve  only  to  propagate  evil  and  to  sup* 
press  virtue.  The  love  of  the  Christian  should  be 
patterned  after  the  love  of  God ;  but  divine  love 
circumscribes  and  reproves  evil  only  as  may  be 
required  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  safety  of  his 
servants.     If  evil  is  propagated,  we  must  set  bounds 


MY  EELIGION.  93 

to  evil  and  punish  it,  —  now  this  is  the  dot}'  of 
authorities.1 

Christian  scholars  and  free  -  thinkers  are  not 
embarrassed  by  the  meaning  of  these  words  of 
Jesus,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  correct  them.  The 
sentiments  here  expressed,  they  tell  us,  are  very 
noble,  but  are  completely  inapplicable  to  life  ;  for  if 
we  practised  to  the  letter  the  commandment,  "Re- 
sist not  evil"  our  entire  social  fabric  would  be 
destroyed.  This  is  what  Renan,  Strauss,  and  all 
the  liberal  commentators  tell  us.  If,  however,  we 
take  the  words  of  Jesus  as  we  would  take  the  words 
of  any  one  who  speaks  to  us,  and  admit  that  he  says 
exactly  what  he  docs  say,  all  these  profound  circum- 
locutions vanish  away.  Ijesus  says,  "Your  social 
system  is  absurd  and  wrong.  I  propose  to  you 
another."  And  then  he  utters  the  teachings  reported 
by  Matthew  (v.  38-42).  It  would  seem  that  before 
correcting  them  one  ought  to  understand  them  ;  now 
this  is  exactly  what  no  one  wishes  to  do.  We 
decide  in  advance  that  the  social  order  which  con- 
trols our  existence,  and  which  is  abolished  by  these 
words,  is  the  superior  law  of  humanity. 

For  my  part,  I  consider  our  social  order  to  be 
neither  wise  nor  sacred  ;  and  that  is  wiry  I  have 
understood  this  commandment  when  others  have 
not.  And  when  I  had  understood  these  words  just 
as  they  are  written,  I  was  struck  with  their  truth, 

1  This  citation  is  taken  from  the  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel, 
by  the  Archhishop  Michael,  a  work  based  upon  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Church. 


94  MY  RELIGION. 

their  lucidity,  and  their  precision.  Jesus  said, 
"You  wish  to  suppress  evil  by  evil;  this  is  not 
reasonable.  To  abolish  evil,  avoid  the  commission 
of  evil."  And  then  he  enumerates  instances  where 
we  are  in  the  habit  of  returning  evil  for  evil,  and 
says  that  in  these  cases  we  ought  not  so  to  do. 

This  fourth  commandment  was  the  one  that  I  first 
understood ;  and  it  revealed  to  me  the  meaning  of 
all  the  others.  This  simple,  clear,  and  practical 
fourth  commandment  says:  "  Never  resist  evil  by 
force,  never  return  violence  for  violence  :  if  any  one 
beat  you,  bear  it ;  if  one  would  deprive  you  of  any- 
thing, yield  to  his  wishes  ;  if  any  one  would  force 
you  to  labor,  labor ;  if  any  one  would  take  away 
your  property,  abandon  it  at  his  demand." 

After  the  fourth  commandment  we  find  a  fifth 
reference  to  the  ancient  law,  followed  by  the  fifth 
commandment :  — 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,1  Thou  shall 
love  thy  neighbor  and  hate  thine  enemy.  But  I  say 
unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse 
you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for 
them  which  despitefully  use  you,  and  persecute  you; 
That  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven :  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil 
and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on 
the  unjust.  For  if  ye  love  them  which  love  you,  what 
reivard  have  ye?  do  not  even  the  publicans  the  same? 
And  if  ye  salute  your  brethren  only,  what  do  ye  more 

1  See  Levit.  xix.  17, 18. 


MY  RELIGION.  95 

than  others?  do  not  even  the  publicans  so?  Be  ye 
therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  'which  is  in 
heaven  is  perfect."     (Matt.  v.  43-48.) 

These  verses  I  had  formerly  regarded  as  a  contin- 
uation, an  exposition,  an  enforcement,  I  might 
almost  sa}T  an  exaggeration,  of  the  words,  "  Resist 
not  evil."  But  as  I  had  found  a  simple,  precise, 
and  practical  meaning  in  each  of  the  passages 
beginning  with  a  reference  to  the  ancient  law,  I 
anticipated  a  similar  experience  here.  After  each 
reference  of  this  sort  had  thus  far  come  a  command- 
ment, and  each  commandment  had  been  important 
and  distinct  in  meaning ;  it  ought  to  be  so  now. 
The  closing  words  of  the  passage,  repeated  by  Luke, 
which  are  to  the  effect  that  God  makes  no  distinction 
of  persons,  but  lavishes  his  gifts  upon  all,  and  that 
we,  following  his  precepts,  ought  to  regard  all  men 
as  equally  worthy,  and  to  do  good  to  all,  —  these 
words  were  clear ;  they  seemed  to  me  to  be  a  con- 
firmation and  exposition  *of  some  definite  law  —  but 
what  was  this  law?  For  a  long  time  I  could  not 
understand  it. 

To  love  one's  enemies?  —  this  was  impossible.  It 
was  one  of  those  sublime  thoughts  that  we  must 
look  upon  only  as  an  indication  of  a  moral  ideal 
impossible  of  attainment.  It  demanded  all  or  noth- 
ing. We  might,  perhaps,  refrain  from  doing  injury 
to  our  enemies  —  but  to  love  them  !  —  no  ;  Jesus 
did  not  command  the  impossible.  And  besides,  in 
the  words  referring  to  the  ancient  law,  "  Ye  have 
heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  .  .  .  hate 


96  MY  RELIGION. 

thine  enemy,  "  there  was  cause  for  doubt.  In  other 
references  Jesus  cited  textually  the  terms  of  the 
Mosaic  law ;  but  here  he  apparently  cites  words 
that  have  no  such  authority  ;  he  seems  to  calumniate 
ttie  law  of  Moses. 

As  with  regard  to  my  former  doubts,  so  now  the 
commentators  gave  me  no  explanation  of  the  diffi- 
culty. They  all  agreed  that  the  words  "hate  thine 
enemy  "  were  not  in  the  Mosaic  law,  but  they  offered 
no  suggestion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  unauthorized 
phrase.  They  spoke  of  the  difficulty  of  loving  one's 
enemies,  that  is,  wicked  men  (thus  they  emended 
Jesus'  words)  ;  and  they  said  that  while  it  is  impos- 
sible to  love  our  enemies,  we  may  refrain  from  wish- 
ing them  harm  and  from  inflicting  injury  upon  them. 
Moreover,  they  insinuated  mat  we  might  and  should 
"  convince"  our  enemies,  that  is,  resist  them  ;  they 
spoke  of  the  different  degrees  of  love  for  our  ene- 
mies which  we  might  attain  —  from  all  of  which  the 
final  conclusion  was  that  Jesus,  for  some  inexplica- 
ble reason,  quoted  as  from  the  law  of  Moses  words 
not  to  be  found  therein,  and  then  uttered  a  number 
of  sublime  phrases  which  at  bottom  are  impractica- 
ble and  empty  of  meaning. 

I  could  not  agree  with  this  conclusion.  In  this 
passage,  as  in  the  passages  containing  the  first  four 
commandments,  there  must  be  some  clear  and  pre- 
cise meaning.  To  find  this  meaning,  I  set  myself 
first  of  all  to  discover  the  purport  of  the  words  con- 
taining the  inexact  reference  to  the  ancient  law, 
"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said.  Thou  shalt 


MY  RELIGION.  97 

.  .  .  hate  thine  enemy."  Jesus  had  some  reason 
for  placing  at  the  head  of  each  of  his  command- 
ments certain  portions  of  the  ancient  law  to  serve 
as  the  antitheses  of  his  own  doctrine.  If  we  do  not 
understand  what  is  meant  by  the  citations  from  the 
ancient  law,  we  cannot  understand  what  Jesus  pro- 
scribed. The  commentators  say  frankly  (it  is 
impossible  not  to  say  so)  that  Jesus  in  this  instance 
made  use  of  words  not  to  be  found  in  the  Mosaic 
law,  but  they  do  not  tell  us  why  he  did  so  or  what 
meaning  we  are  to  attach  to  the  words  thus  used. 

It  seemed  to  me  above  all  necessary  to  know 
what  Jesus  had  in  view  when  he  cited  these  words 
which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  law.  I  asked  myself 
what  these  words  could  mean.  In  all  other  refer- 
ences of  the  sort,  Jesus  quotes  a  single  rule  from 
the  ancient  law:  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill"  —  "Thou 
shalt  not  commit  adultery  "  —  "  Thou  shalt  not  for- 
swear thyself  "  —  "  An  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for 
a  tooth"  —  and  with  regard  to  each  rule  he  pro- 
pounds his  own  doctrine.  In  the  instance  under 
consideration,  he  cites  two  contrasting  rules:  "Ye 
have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  and  hate  thine  enemy," — from  which  it 
would  appear  that  the  contrast  between  these  two 
rules  of  the  ancient  law,  relative  to  one's  neighbor 
and  one's  enemy,  should  be  the  basis  of  the  new 
law.  To  understand  clearly  what  this  contrast  was, 
I  sought  for  the  meanings  of  the  words  "  neighbor" 
and  "enemy,"  as  used  in  the  Gospel  text.  After 
consulting  dictionaries  and  Biblical  texts,  I  was  con- 


98  MY  RELIGION. 

vinced  that  "neighbor"  in  the  Hebrew  language 
meant,  invariably  and  exclusively,  a  Hebrew.  We 
find  the  same  meaning  expressed  in  the  Gospel  par- 
able of  the  Samaritan.  From  the  inquiry  of  the 
Jewish  scribe  (Luke  x.  29),  "  And  ivho  is  my  neigh- 
bor f  "  it  is  plain  that  he  did  not  regard  the  Samari- 
tan as  such.  The  word  "neighbor"  is  used  with 
the  same  meaning  in  Acts  vii.  27.  "  Neighbor,"  in 
Gospel  language,  means  a  compatriot,  a  person 
belonging  to  the  same  nationality.  And  so  the 
antithesis  used  by  Jesus  in  the  citation,  "  love  thy 
neighbor,  hate  thine  enemy  "  must  be  in  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  words  "compatriot"  and 
"foreigner."  I  then  sought  for  the  Jewish  under- 
standing of  "  enemy,"  and  I  found  my  supposition 
confirmed.  The  word  "enemy"  is  nearly  always 
employed  in  the  Gospels  in  the  sense,  not  of  a  per- 
sonal enemy,  but,  in  genera],  of  a  "  hostile  people" 
(Luke  i.  71,  74;  Matt.  xxii.  44  ;  Mark  xii.  36  ; 
Luke  xx.  43,  etc.).  The  use  of  the  word  " enemy  " 
in  the  singular  form,  in  the  phrase  "  hate  thine 
enemy"  convinced  me  that  the  meaning  is  a  "  hos- 
tile people."  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  conception 
' '  hostile  people  "  is  nearly  always  expressed  in  the 
singular  form. 

When  I  understood  this,  I  understood  why  Jesus, 
who  had  before  quoted  the  authentic  words  of  the 
law,  had  here  cited  the  words  "hate  thine  enemy" 
Wrhen  we  understand  the  word  "  enemy  "  in  the 
sense  of  "hostile  people,"  and  "neighbor"  in  the 
sense  of  "compatriot,"  the  difficulty  is  completely 


MY  RELIGION.  99 

solved.  Jesus  spoke  of  the  manner  in  which  Moses 
directed  the  Hebrews  to  act  toward  4 '  hostile  peo- 
ples." The  various  passages  scattered  through  the 
different  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  prescribing 
the  oppression,  slaughter,  and  extermination  of 
other  peoples,  Jesns  summed  op  in  one  word, 
"  hate,"  —  make  war  upon  the  enemy.  He  said,  in 
substance:  "You  have  heard  that  you  must  love 
those  of  your  own  race,  and  hate  foreigners ;  but  I 
say  unto  you,  love  every  one  without  distinction  of 
nationality."  When  I  had  understood  these  words 
in  this  way,  I  saw  immediately  the  force  of  the 
phrase,  "Love  your  enemies."  It  is  impossible  to 
love  one's  personal  enemies ;  but  it  is  perfectly  pos- 
sible to  love  the  citizens  of  a  foreign  nation  equally 
with  one's  compatriots.  And  I  saw  clearly  that  in 
saying,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor,  and  hate  thine  enemy.  But  1 
say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies ,"  Jesus  meant  to 
say  that  men  are  in  the  habit  of  looking  upon  com- 
patriots as  neighbors,  and  foreigners  as  enemies; 
and  this  he  reproved.  His  meaning  was  that  the 
law  of  Moses  established  a  difference  between  the 
Hebrew  and  the  foreigner  —  the  hostile  peoples  ;  but 
he  forbade  any  such  difference.  And  then,  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  and  Luke,  after  giving  this  com- 
mandment, he  said  that  with  God  all  men  are  equal, 
all  are  warmed  by  the  same  sun,  all  profit  by  the 
same  rain.  God  makes  no  distinction  among  peo- 
ples, and  lavishes  his  gifts  upon  all  men  ;  men  ought 
to  act  exactly  in  the  same  way  toward  one  another, 


100  MY  RELIGION. 

without  distinction  of  nationality,  and  not  like  the 
heathen,  who  divide  themselves  into  distinct  nation- 
alities. 

Thus  once  more  I  found  confirmed  on  all  sides 
the  simple,  clear,  important,  and  practical  meaning 
of  the  words  of  Jesus.  Once  more,  in  place  of  an 
obscure  sentence,  I  had  found  a  clear,  precise, 
important,  and  practical  rule :  To  make  no  dis- 
tinction between  compatriots  and  foreigners,  and  to 
abstain  from  all  the  results  of  such  distinction,  — 
from  hostility-  towards  foreigners,  from  wars,  from 
all  participation  in  war,  from  all  preparations  for 
war;  to  establish  with  all  men,  of  whatever  nation- 
ality, the  same  relations  granted  to  compatriots. 
All  this  was  so  simple  and  so  clear,  that  I  was 
Astonished  that  I  had  not  perceived  it  from  the  first. 

The  cause  of  my  error  was  the  same  as  that  which 
had  perplexed  me  with  regard  to  the  passages  relat- 
ing to  judgments  and  the  taking  of  oaths.  It  is 
very  difficult  to  believe  that  tribunals  upheld  by 
professed  Christians,  blest  by  those  who  consider 
themselves  the  guardians  of  the  law  of^Jesus,  could 
be  incompatible  with  the  Christian  religion  ;  could 
be,  in  fact,  diametrically  opposed  to  it.  It  is  still 
more  difficult  to  believe  that  the  oath  which  we  are 
obliged  to  take  by  the  guardians  of  the  law  of  Jesus, 
is  directly  reproved  by  this  law.  To  admit  that 
everything  in  life  that  is  considered  essential  and 
natural,  as  well  as  what  is  considered  the  most  noble 
and  grand,  —  love  of  country,  its  defence,  its  glory, 
battle  with  its  enemies,  —  to  admit  that  all  this  is 


MY  RELIGION.  101 

not  only  an  infraction  of  the  law  of  Jesus,  but  is 
directly  denounced  by  Jesus,  —  this,  I  say,  is 
difficult. 

Our  existence  is  now  so  entirely  in  contradiction 
with  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  that  only  with  the  great 
est  difficulty  can  we  understand  its  meaning.  We 
have  been  so  deaf  to  the  rules  of  life  that  he  has 
given  us,  to  his  explanations,  —  not  only  when  he 
commands  us  not  to  kill,  but  when  he  warns  us  against 
anger,  when  he  commands  us  not  to  resist  evil,  to 
turn  the  other  cheek,  to  love  our  enemies  ;  we  are 
so  accustomed  to  speak  of  a  body  of  men  especially 
organized  for  murder,  as  a  Christian  army,  we  are 
so  accustomed  to  prayers  addressed  to  the  Christ  for 
the  assurance  of  victory,  we  who  have  made  the 
sword,  that  symbol  of  murder,  an  almost  sacred  ob- 
ject (so  that  a  man  deprived  of  this  symbol,  of  his 
sword,  is  a  dishonored  man)  ;  we  are  so  accustomed, 
I  say,  to  this,  that  the  words  of  Jesus  seem  to  us 
compatible  with  war.  We  say,  "If  he  had  forbid- 
den it,  he  would  have  said  so  plainly."  We  forget 
that  Jesus  did  not  foresee  that  men  having  faith  in 
his  doctrine  of  humility,  love,  and  fraternity,  could 
ever,  with  calmness  and  premeditation,  organize 
themselves  for  the  murder  of  their  brethren. 

Jesus  did  not  foresee  this,  and  so  he  did  not  forbid 
a  Christian  to  participate  in  war.  A  father  who  ex- 
horts his  son  to  live  honestly,  never  to  wrong  any 
person,  and  to  give  all  that  he  has  to  others,  would 
not  forbid  his  son  to  kill  people  upon  the  highway. 
None  of  the  apostles,  no  disciple  of  Jesus  during  the 


102  MY  RELIGION. 

first  centuries  of  Christianity,  realized  the  necessity 
of  forbidding  a  Christian  that  form  of  murder  which 
we  call  war. 

Here,  for  example,  is  what  Origen  says  in  his 
reply  to  Celsus  : l  — 

"  In  the  next  place,  Celsus  urges  us  '  to  help  the 
king  with  all  our  might,  and  to  labor  with  him  in  the 
maintenance  of  justice,  to  fight  for  him ;  and,  if  he 
requires  it,  to  fight  under  him,  or  lead  an  army  along 
with  him.'  To  this,  our  answer  is  that  we  do,  when 
occasion  requires,  give  help  to  kings,  and  that, 
so  to  say,  a  divine  help,  '  putting  on  the  whole 
armour  of  God.'  And  this  we  do  in  obedience  to 
the  injunction  of  the  apostle,  '  I  exhort,  therefore, 
that  first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions, 
and  giving  of  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men,  for  kings, 
and  for  all  that  are  in  authority ' ;  and  the  more  any 
one  excels  in  piety,  the  more  effective  help  does  he 
render  to  kings,  even  more  than  is  given  by  soldiers, 
who  go  forth  to  fight  and  slay  as  many  of  the 
enemy  as  they  can.  And  to  those  enemies  of  our 
faith  who  require  us  to  bear  arms  for  the  common- 
wealth, and  to  slay  men,  we  can  reply:  'Do  not 
those  who  are  priests  at  certain  shrines,  and  those 
who  attend  on  certain  gods,  as  3-011  account  them, 
keep  their  hands  free  from  blood,  that  they  may 
with  hands  unstained  and  free  from  human  blood, 
offer  the  appointed  sacrifices  to  your  gods?  and 
even  when  war  is  upon  you,  you  never  enlist  the 
priests  in  the  army.  If  that,  then,  is  a  laudable 
1  Contra  Celsiun,  book  VIII.  chap.  LXXIII. 


MY  RELIGION.  103 

custom,  how  much  more  so,  that  while  others  arc 
engaged  in  battle,  these  too  should  engage  as  the 
priests  and  ministers  of  God,  keeping  their  hands 
pure,  and  wrestling  in  prayers  to  God  on  behalf  of 
those  who  are  fighting  in  a  righteous  cause,  and  foi 
the  king  who  reigns  righteously,  that  whatever  is 
opposed  to  those  who  act  righteously  may  be 
destroyed  ! '" 

And  at  the  close  of  the  chapter,  in  explaining 
that  Christians,  through  their  peaceful  lives,  are 
much  more  helpful  to  kings  than  soldiers  are,  Origen 
says  :  — 

"And  none  fight  better  for  the  king  than  we  do. 
We  do  not,  indeed,  fight  under  him,  although  he 
require  it ;  .but  we  fight  on  his  behalf,  forming  a 
special  army,  —  an  army  of  piety,  —  by  offering  our 
prayers  to  God." 

This  is  the  way  in  which  the  Christians  of  the  first 
centuries  regarded  war,  and  such  was  the  language 
that  their  leaders  addressed  to  the  rulers  of  the  earth 
at  a  period  when  martyrs  perished  by  hundreds  and 
by  thousands  for  having  confessed  the  religion  of 
Jesus,  the  Christ. 

And  now  is  not  the  question  settled  as  to  whether  a 
Christian  may  or  may  not  go  to  war  ?  All  young  men 
brought  up  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
called  Christian,  are  obliged  at  a  specified  date  dur- 
ing ever}'  autumn,  to  report  at  the  bureaus  of  con- 
scription and,  under  the  guidance  of  their  spiritual 
directors,  deliberately  to  renounce  the  religion  of 
Jesus.     Not   long  ago,   there  was  a   peasant  who 


104  MY  RELIGION. 

refused  military  service  on  the  plea  that  it  was  con- 
trary to  the  Gospel.  The  doctors  of  the  Church 
explained  to  the  peasant  his  error ;  but,  as  the 
peasant  had  faith,  not  in  their  words,  but  in  those 
of  Jesus,  he  was  thrown  into  prison,  where  he  re- 
mained until  he  was  ready  to  renounce  the  law  of 
Christ.  And  all  this  happened  after  Christians  had 
heard  for  eighteen  hundred  years  the  clear,  precise, 
and  practical  commandment  of  their  Master,  which 
teaches  not  to  consider  men  of  different  nationality 
as  enemies,  but  to  consider  all  men  as  brethren, 
and  to  maintain  with  them  the  same  relations  exist- 
ing among  compatriots  ;  to  refrain  not  only  from 
killing  those  who  arc  called  enemies,  but  to  love 
them  and  to  minister  to  their  needs. 

When  I  had  understood  these  simple  and  precise 
commandments  of  Jesus,  these  commandments  so 
ill  adapted  to  the  ingenious  distortions  of  commen- 
tators, —  I  asked  myself  what  would  be  the  result  if 
the  whole  Christian  world  believed  in  them,  believed 
not  only  in  reading  and  chanting  them  for  the  glory 
of  God,  but  also  in  obeying  them  for  the  good  of 
humanity?  What  would  be  the  result  if  men  be- 
lieved in  the  observance  of  these  commandments 
at  least  as  seriously  as  they  believe  in  daily  devo- 
tions, in  attendance  on  Sunday  worship,  in  weekly 
fasts,  in  the  holy  sacrament?  What  would  be  the 
result  if  the  faith  of  men  in  these  commandments 
were  as  strong  as  their  faith  in  the  requirements  of 
the  Church?  And  then  I  saw  in  imagination  a 
Christian   society   living   according   to   these   com- 


MY  RELIGION.  105 

mandments  and  educating  the  younger  generation 
to  follow  their  precepts.  I  tried  to  picture  the 
results  if  we  taught  our  children  from  infancy,  not 
what  we  teach  them  now  —  to  maintain  personal 
dignity,  to  uphold  personal  privileges  against  the 
encroachments  of  others  (which  we  can  never  do 
without  humiliating  or  offending  others) — but  to 
teach  them  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  privileges, 
and  can  neither  be  above  or  below  any  one  else ; 
that  he  alone  debases  and  demeans  himself  who 
tries  to  domineer  over  others  ;  that  a  man  can  be  in 
a  no  more  contemptible  condition  than  when  he  is 
angry  with  another ;  that  what  may  seem  to  be 
foolish  and  despicable  in  another  is  no  excuse  for 
wrath  or  enmity.  I  sought  to  imagine  the  results 
if,  instead  of  extolling  our  social  organization  as  it 
now  is,  with  its  theatres,  its  romances,  its  sumptu- 
ous methods  for  stimulating  sensuous  desires — if, 
instead  of  this,  we  taught  our  children  by  precept 
and  by  example,  that  the  reading  of  lascivious 
romances  and  attendance  at  theatres  and  balls  are 
the  most  vulgar  of  all  distractions,  and  that  there 
is  nothing  more  grotesque  and  humiliating  than  to 
pass  one's  time  in  the  collection  and  arrangement 
of  personal  finery  to  make  of  one's  body  an  object 
of  show.  I  endeavored  to  imagine  a  state  of  society 
where,  instead  of  permitting  and  approving  liber- 
tinism in  young  men  before  marriage,  instead  of 
regarding  the  separation  of  husband  and  wife  as 
natural  and  desirable,  instead  of  giving  to  women 
the  legal  right  to  practise  the  trade  of  prostitution, 


106  MY  RELIGION. 

instead  of  countenancing  and  sanctioning  divorce  — 
if,  instead  of  this,  we  taught  by  words  and  actions 
that  the  state  of  celibacy,  the  solitary  existence  of 
a  man  properly  endowed  for,  and  who  has  not 
renounced  the  sexual  relation,  is  a  monstrous  and 
opprobrious  wrong ;  and  that  the  abandonment  of 
wife  by  husband  or  of  husband  by  wife  for  the 
sake  of  another,  is  an  act  against  nature,  an  act 
bestial  aud  inhuman. 

Instead  of  regarding  it  as  natural  that  our  entire 
existence  should  be  controlled  by  coercion  ;  that 
every  one  of  our  amusements  should  be  provided 
and  maintained  by  force ;  that  each  of  us  from 
childhood  to  old  age  should  be  by  turns  victim 
and  executioner  —  instead  of  this  I  tried  to  picture 
the  results  if,  by  precept  and  example,  we  endeav- 
ored to  inspire  the  world  with  the  conviction  that 
vengeance  is  a  sentiment  unworthy  of  humanity ; 
that  violence  is  not  only  debasing,  but  that  it  de- 
prives us  of  all  capacity  for  happiness ;  that  the 
true  pleasures  of  life  are  not  those  maintained  by 
force  ;  and  that  our  greatest  consideration  ought  to 
be  bestowed,  not  upon  those  who  accumulate  riches 
to  the  injury  of  others,  but  upon  those  who  best 
serve  others  and  give  what  they  have  to  lessen  the 
woes  of  their  kind.  If  instead  of  regarding  the 
taking  of  an  oath  and  the  placing  of  ourselves  and 
our  lives  at  the  disposition  of  another  as  a  rightful 
and  praiseworthy  act,  —  I  tried  to  imagine  what 
would  be  the  result  if  we  taught  that  the  enlightened 
will  of  man  is  alone  sacred  ;  and  that  if  a  man  place 


MY  RELIGION.  107 

himself  at  the  disposition  of  any  one,  and  promise 
by  oath  anything  whatever,  he  renounces  his  rational 
manhood  and  outrages  his  most  sacred  right.  I 
tried  to  imagine  the  results,  if,  instead  of  the 
national  hatred  with  which  we  are  inspired  under 
the  name  of  "  patriotism " ;  if,  in  place  of  the 
glory  associated  with  that  form  of  murder  which  we 
call  war,  —  if,  in  place  of  this,  we  were  taught,  on 
the  contrary,  horror  and  contempt  for  all  the  means 
— military,  diplomatic,  and  political  —  which  serve 
to  divide  men ;  if  we  were  educated  to  look  upon 
the  division  of  men  into  political  States,  and  a 
diversity  of  codes  and  frontiers,  as  an  indication  of 
barbarism ;  and  that  to  massacre  others  is  a  most 
horrible  crime,  only  to  be  perpetrated  by  a  de- 
praved and  misguided  man,  who  has  fallen  to  the 
lowest  level  of  the  brute.  I  imagined  that  all  men 
had  arrived  at  these  convictions,  and  I  considered 
what  I  thought  would  be  the  result. 

Up  to  this  time  (I  said),  what  have  been  the 
oractical  results  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  I 
understand  it?  and  the  involuntary  reply  was, 
Nothing.  We  continue  to  pray,  to  partake  of  the 
sacraments,  to  believe  in  the  redemption,  and  in 
our  personal  salvation  as  well  as  that  of  the  world 
by  Jesus  the  Christ,  —  and  yet  hold  that  salvation 
will  never  come  by  our  efforts,  but  will  come  be- 
cause the  period  set  for  the  end  of  the  world  will 
have  arrived  when  the  Christ  will  appear  in  his 
glory  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,  and  the 
kingdom  of    heaven  will  be  established. 


108  MY  RELIGION. 

Now  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  as  I  understood  it, 
had  an  entirely  different  meaning.  The  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  God  depended  upon  our 
personal  efforts  in  the  practice  of  Jesus'  doctrine  as 
propounded  in  the  five  commandments,  which  insti- 
tuted the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth.  The  king- 
dom of  God  upon  earth  consists  in  this,  that  all 
men  should  be  at  peace  with  one  another.  It  was 
thus  that  the  Hebrew  prophets  conceived  of  the 
rule  of  God.  Peace  among  men  is  the  greatest 
blessing  that  can  exist  upon  this  earth,  and  it  is 
within  reach  of  all  men.  This  ideal  is  in  every 
human  heart.  The  prophets  all  brought  to  men  the 
promise  of  peace.  The  whole  doctrine  of  Jesus 
has  but  one  object,  to  establish  peace — the  king- 
dom of  God — among  men. 

In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  the  interview 
with  Nicodemus,  in  the  instructions  given  to  his 
disciples,  in  all  his  teachings,  Jesus  spoke  only  of  this, 
of  the  things  that  divided  men,  that  kept  them 
from  peace,  that  prevented  them  from  entering  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  parables  make  clear 
to  us  what  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is,  and  show  us 
the  only  way  of  entering  therein,  which  is  to  love 
our  brethren,  and  to  be  at  peace  with  all.  John 
the  Baptist,  the  forerunner  of  Jesus,  proclaimed  the 
approach  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  declared  that 
Jesus  was  to  bring  it  upon  earth.  Jesus  himself 
said  that  his  mission  wag  to  bring  peace  :  — 

"  Peace  I  leave  with  you,  my  peace  I  give  unto 
you :  not  as  the  world  giveth,  give  I  unto  you.     Let 


MY  RELIGION.  109 

not  your  heart  be  troubled,  neither  let  it  be  afraid  " 
(Jolmxiv.  27). 

And  the  observance  of  his  five  commandments 
will  bring  peace  upon  the  earth.  They  all  have  but 
one  object,  —  the  establishment  of  peace  among 
men.  If  men  will  only  believe  in  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  and  practise  it,  the  reign  of  peace  will  come 
upon  earth,  —  not  that  peace  which  is  the  work  of 
man,  partial,  precarious,  and  at  the  mercy  of 
chance  ;  but  the  peace  that  is  all-pervading,  inviola- 
ble, and  eternal. 

The  first  commandment  tells  us  to  be  at  peace 
with  every  one  and  to  consider  none  as  foolish  or 
unworthy.  If  peace  is  violated,  we  are  to  seek  to 
re-establish  it.  The  true  religion  is  in  the  extinc- 
tion of  enmity  among  men.  We  are  to  be  reconciled 
without  delay,  that  we  may  not  lose  that  inner  peace 
which  is  the  true  life  (Matt.  vv  22-24) .  Everything 
is  comprised  in  this  commandment ;  but  Jesus  knew 
the  worldly  temptations  that  prevent  peace  among 
men.  The  first  temptation  perilous  to  peace  is  that 
of  the  sexual  relation.  We  are  not  to  consider  the 
body  as  an  instrument  of  lust ;  each  man  is  to  have 
one  wife,  and  each  woman  one  husband,  and  one  is 
never  to  forsake  the  other  under  any  pretext  (Matt. 
v.  28-32).  The  second  temptation  is  that  of  the 
oath,  which  draws  men  into  sin  ;  this  is  wrong,  and 
we  are  not  to  be  bound  by  any  such  promise  (Matt, 
v.  34-37).  The  third  temptation  is  that  of  ven- 
geance, which  we  call  human  justice  ;  this  we  are 
not  to  resort  to  under  any  pretext ;  we  are  to  endure 


110  MY  RELIGION. 

offences  and  never  to  return  evil  for  evil  (Matt,  v- 
38-42) .  The  fourth  temptation  is  that  arising  from 
difference  in  nationalities,  from  hostility  between 
peoples  and  States  ;  but  we  are  to  remember  that 
all  men  are  brothers,  and  children  of  the  same 
Father,  and  thus  take  care  that  difference  in  nation- 
ality leads  not  to  the  destruction  of  peace  ^Matt.  v. 
43-48). 

If  men  abstain  from  practising  any  one  of  these 
commandments,  peace  will  be  violated.  Let  men 
practise  all  these  commandments,  which  exclude 
evil  from  the  lives  of  men,  and  peace  will  be  estab- 
lished upon  earth.  The  practice  of  these  five  com- 
mandments would  realize  the  ideal  of  human  life 
existing  in  every  human  heart.  All  men  would  be 
brothers,  each  would  be  at  peace  with  others,  enjoy- 
ing all  the  blessings  of  earth  to  the  limit  of  years 
accorded  by  the  Creator.  Men  would  beat  their 
swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into 
pruning-hooks,  and  then  would  come  the  kingdom 
of  God,  —  that  reign  of  peace  foretold  by  all  the 
prophets,  which  was  foretold  by  John  the  Baptist  as 
near  at  hand,  and  which  Jesus  proclaimed  in  the 
words  of  Isaiah  :  — 

"  '  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he 
hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor ;  he 
hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken  hearted,  to  preach 
deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering  of  sight  to  the 
blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to  preach 
the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.1 1  .  .  .  And  he  began 
1  Isaiah  lxi.  1,  2. 


MY  RELIGION.  Ill 

to  say  unto  them,  To-day  hath  this  Scripture  been 
fulfilled  in  your  ears  "  (Luke  iv.  18,  19,  21). 

The  commandments  for  peace  given  by  Jesus,  — 
those  simple  and  clear  commandments,  foreseeing 
all  possibilities  of  discussion,  and  anticipating  all 
objections,  —  these  commandments  proclaimed  the 
kingdom  of  God  upon  earth.  Jesus,  then,  was,  in 
truth,  the  Messiah.  He  fulfilled  what  had  been 
promised.  But  we  have  not  fulfilled  the  commands 
we  must  fulfil  if  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  be  estab- 
lished upon  earth,  —  that  kingdom  which  men  in  all 
ages  have  earnestly  desired,  and  have  sought  for 
continually,  all  their  days. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

WHY  is  it  that  men  have  not  done  as  Jesus 
commanded  them,  and  thus  secured  the 
greatest  happiness  within  their  reach,  the  happiness 
they  have  always  longed  for  and  still  desire  ?  Tlie 
reply  to  this  inquiry  is  always  the  same,  although 
expressed  in  different  ways.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus 
(we  are  told)  is  admirable,  and  it  is  true  that  if  we 
practised  it,  we  should  see  the  kingdom  of  God 
established  upon  earth  ;  but  to  practise  it  is  difficult, 
and  consequently  this  doctrine  is  impracticable. 
The  doctrine  of  Jesus,  which  teaches  men  how  they 
should  live,  is  admirable,  is  divine ;  it  brings  true 
happiness,  but  it  is  difficult  to  practise.  We  repeat 
this,  and  hear  it  repeated  so  many,  many  times, 
that  we  do  not  observe  the  contradiction  contained 
in  these  words. 

It  is  natural  to  each  human  being  to  do  what 
seems  to  him  best.  Any  doctrine  teaching  men  how 
they  should  live  instructs  them  only  as  to  what  is 
best  for  each.  If  we  show  men  what  they  have  to 
do  to  attain  what  is  best  for  each,  how  can  they  say 
that  they  would  like  to  do  it,  but  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble of  attainment?  According  to  the  law  of  their 
nature  they  cannot  do  what  is  worse  for  each,  and 
yet  they  declare  that  they  cannot  do  what  is  best. 


MY  RELIGION.  113 

The  reasonable  activity  of  man,  from  his  earliest 
existence,  has  been  applied  to  the  search  for  what 
is  best  among  the  contradictions  that  envelop  human 
life.  Men  struggled  for  the  soil,  for  objects  which 
are  necessary  to  them  ;  then  they  arrived  at  the 
division  of  goods,  and  called  this  property  ;  finding 
that  this  arrangement,  although  difficult  to  estab- 
lish, was  best,  they  maintained  ownership.  Men 
fought  with  one  another  for  the  possession  of 
women,  they  abandoned  their  children ;  then  the}7 
found  it  was  best  that  each  should  have  his  own 
family  ;  and  although  it  was  difficult  to  sustain  a 
family,  they  maintained  the  family,  as  they  did 
ownership  and  many  other  things.  As  soon  as  they 
discover  that  a  thing  is  best,  however  difficult  of 
attainment,  men  do  it.  What,  then,  is  the  meaning 
of  the  saying  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  admira- 
ble, that  a  life  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
would  be  better  than  the  life  which  men  now  lead, 
but  that  men  cannot  lead  this  better  life  because  it 
is  difficult? 

If  the  word  "  difficult,"  used  in  this  way,  is  to  be 
understood  in  the  sense  that  it  is  difficult  to  renounce 
the  fleeting  satisfaction  of  sensual  desires  that  we 
may  obtain  a  greater  good,  why  do  we  not  say  that 
it  is  difficult  to  labor  for  bread,  difficult  to  plant  a 
tree  that  we  ma}7  enjoy  the  fruit?  Every  being 
endowed  with  even  the  most  rudimentary  reason 
knows  that  he  must  endure  difficulties  to  procure, 
any  good,  superior  to  that  which  he  has  enjoyed 
before.     And  yet  we  say  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 


114  MY  RELIGION. 

is  admirable,  but  impossible  of  practice,  because  it 
is  difficult !  Now  it  is  difficult,  because  in  following 
it  we  are  obliged  to  deprive  ourselves  of  many  things 
that  we  have  hitherto  enjoyed.  Have  we  never 
heard  that  it  is  far  more  to  our  advantage  to  endure 
difficulties  and  privations  than  to  satisfy  all  our 
desires?  Man  may  fall  to  the  level  of  the  beasts, 
but  he  ought  not  to  make  use  of  his  reason  to  devise 
an  apology  for  his  bestiality.  From  the  moment 
that  he  begins  to  reason,  he  is  conscious  of  being 
endowed  with  reason,  and  this  consciousness  stimu- 
lates him  to  distinguish  between  the  reasonable  and 
the  unreasonable.  Reason  does  not  proscribe  ;  it 
enlightens. 

Suppose  that  I  am  shut  into  a  dark  room,  and  in 
searching  for  the  door  I  continually  bruise  myself 
against  the  walls.  Some  one  brings  me  a  light,  and 
I  see  the  door.  I  ought  no  longer  to  bruise  myself 
when  I  see  the  door ;  much  less  ought  I  to  affirm 
that,  although  it  is  best  to  go  out  through  the  door, 
it  is  difficult  to  do  so,  and  that,  consequently,  I 
prefer  to  bruise  myself  against  the  walls. 

In  this  marvellous  argument  that  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  is  admirable,  and  that  its  practice  would  give 
the  world  true  happiness,  but  that  men  are  weak 
and  sinful,  that  they  would  do  the  best  and  do  the 
worst,  and  so  cannot  do  the  best,  —  in  this  strange 
plea  there  is  an  evident  misapprehension  ;  there  is 
something  else  besides  defective  reasoning ;  there 
is  also  a  chimerical  idea.  Only  a  chimerical  idea, 
mistaking  reality  for  what  does  not  exist,  and  taking 


MY  RELIGION.  115 

the  non-existent  for  reality,  could  lead  men  to  deny 
the  possibility  of  practising  that  which  b}'  their  own 
avowal  would  be  for  their  true  welfare. 

The  chimerical  idea  which  has  reduced  men  to 
this  condition  is  that  of  the  dogmatic  Christian  relig- 
ion, as  it  is  taught  through  the  various  catechisms, 
to  all  who  profess  the  Christianity  of  the  Church. 
This  religion,  according  to  the  definition  of  it  given 
by  its  followers,  consists  in  accepting  as  real  that 
which  does  not  exist  —  these  are  Paul's  words,1  and 
they  are  repeated  in  all  the  theologies  and  cate- 
chisms as  the  best  definition  of  faith.  It  is  this 
faith  in  the  reality  of  what  does  not  exist  that  leads 
men  to  make  the  strange  affirmation  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  is  excellent  for  all  men,  but  is  worth 
nothing  as  a  guide  to  their  way  of  living.  Here  is 
an  exact  summary  of  what  this  religion  teaches  :  — 

A  personal  God,  who  is  from  all  eternity  —  one 
of  three  persons  —  decided  to  create  a  world  of 
spirits.  This  God  of  goodness  created  the  world  of 
spirits  for  their  own  happiness,  but  it  so  happened 
that  one  of  the  spirits  became  spontaneously  wicked. 
Time  passed,  and  God  created  a  material  world, 
created  man  for  man's  own  happiness,  created  man 
happy,  immortal,  and  without  sin.  The  felicity  of 
man  consisted  in  the  enjoyment  of  life  without  toil ; 
his  immortality  was  due  to  the  promise  that  this  life 
should  last  forever ;  his  innocence  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  he  had  no  conception  of  evil. 

1  Heb.  ii.  2.  Literally,  "  Faith  is  the  support  of  the  hoped 
for,  the  conviction  of  the  unseen." 


116  MY  RELIGION. 

Man  was  beguiled  in  paradise  by  one  of  the 
spirits  of  the  first  creation,  who  had  become  sponta- 
neously wicked.  From  this  dates  the  fall  of  man, 
who  engendered  other  men  fallen  like  himself,  and 
from  this  time  men  have  endured  toil,  sickness, 
suffering,  death,  the  physical  and  moral  struggle  for 
existence  ;  that  is  to  sa}*,  the  fantastic  being  pre- 
ceding the  fall  became  real,  as  we  know  him  to  be, 
as  we  have  no  right  or  reason  to  imagine  him  not  to 
be.  The  state  of  man  who  toils,  who  suffers,  who 
chooses  what  is  for  his  own  welfare  and  rejects  what 
would  be  injurious  to  him,  who  dies,  —  this  state, 
which  is  the  real  and  only  conceivable  state,  is  not, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  this  religion,  the  nor- 
mal state  of  man,  but  a  state  which  is  unnatural  and 
temporary. 

Although  this  state,  according  to  the  doctrine,  has 
lasted  for  all  humanity  since  the  expulsion  of  Adam 
from  paradise,  that  is,  from  the  commencement  of 
the  world  until  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  has  con- 
tinued since  the  birth  of  Jesus  under  exactly  the 
same  conditions,  the  faithful  are  asked  to  believe 
that  this  is  an  abnormal  and  temporary  state. 
According  to  this  doctrine,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  who  was  himself  God, 
was  sent  by  God  into  the  world  in  the  garb  of 
humanity  to  rescue  men  from  this  temporary  and 
abnormal  state  ;  to  deliver  them  from  the  pains  with 
which  they  had  been  stricken  by  this  same  God  be- 
cause of  Adam's  sin  ;  and  to  restore  them  to  their 
former  normal  state  of  felicity,  —  that  is  to  immor- 


MY  RELIGION.  117 

tality,  innocence,  and  idleness.  The  second  person 
of  the  Trinity  (according  to  this  doctrine),  by  suffer- 
ing death  at  the  hands  of  man,  atoned  for  Adam's 
sin,  and  put  an  end  to  that  abnormal  state  which 
had  lasted  from  the  commencement  of  the  world. 
And  from  that  time  onward,  the  men  who  have  had 
faith  in  Jesus  have  returned  to  the  state  of  the  first 
man  in  paradise  ;  that  is,  have  become  immortal, 
innocent,  and  idle. 

The  doctrine  does  not  concern  itself  too  closely 
with  the  practical  result  of  the  redemption,  in  virtue 
of  which  the  earth  after  Jesus'  coming  ought  to  have 
become  once  more,  at  least  for  believers,  everywhere 
fertile,  without  need  of  human  toil ;  sickness  ought 
to  have  ceased,  and  mothers  have  borne  children 
without  pain ;  —  since  it  is  difficult  to  assure  even 
believers  who  are  worn  by  excessive  labor  and 
broken  down  by  suffering,  that  toil  is  light,  and 
suffering  easy  to  endure. 

But  that  portion  of  the  doctrine  which  proclaims 
the  abrogation  of  death  and  of  sin,  is  affirmed  with 
redoubled  emphasis.  It  is  asserted  that  the  dead 
continue  to  live.  And  as  the  dead  cannot  bear  wit- 
ness that  they  are  dead  or  prove  that  they  are  living 
(just  as  a  stone  is  unable  to  affirm  either  that  it  can 
or  cannot  speak) ,  this  absence  of  denial  is  admitted 
as  proof,  and  it  is  affirmed  that  dead  men  are  not 
dead.  It  is  affirmed  with  still  more  solemnity  and 
assurance  that,  since  the  coming  of  Jesus,  the  man 
who  has  faith  in  him  is  free  from  sin  ;  that  is,  that 
since  the  coming  of  Jesus,  it  is  no  longer  necessary 


118  MY  RELIGION. 

that  man  should  guide  his  life  by  reason,  and  choose 
what  is  best  for  himself.  He  has  only  to  believe 
that  Jesus  has  redeemed  his  sins  and  he  then  becomes 
infallible,  that  is,  perfect.  According  to  this  doc- 
trine, men  ought  to  believe  that  reason  is  powerless, 
and  that  for  this  cause  they  are  without  sin,  that  is, 
cannot  err.  A  faithful  believer  ought  to  be  con- 
vinced that  since  the  coming  of  Jesus,  the  earth 
brings  forth  without  labor,  that  childbirth  no  longer 
entails  suffering,  that  diseases  no  longer  exist,  and 
that  death  and  sin,  that  is,  error,  are  destroyed ;  in 
a  word,  that  what  is,  is  not,  and  what  is  not,  is. 

Such  is  the  rigorously  logical  theory  of  Christian 
theology.  This  doctrine,  by  itself,  seems  to  be 
innocent.  But  deviations  from  truth  are  never  inof- 
fensive, and  the  significance  of  their  consequences 
is  in  proportion  to  the  importance  of  the  subject  to 
which  these  errors  are  applied.  And  here  the  sub- 
ject at  issue  is  the  whole  life  of  man.  What  this 
doctrine  calls  the  true  life,  is  a  life  of  personal  hap- 
piness, without  sin,  and  eternal ;  that  is,  a  life  that 
no  one  has  ever  known,  and  which  does  not  exist. 
But  the  life  that  is,  the  only  life  that  we  know,  the 
life  that  we  live  and  that  all  humanity  lives  and  has 
lived,  is,  according  to  this  doctrine,  a  degraded  and 
evil  existence,  a  mere  phantasmagoria  of  the  happy 
life  which  is  our  due. 

Of  the  struggle  between  animal  instincts  and 
reason,  which  is  the  essence  of  human  life,  this  doc- 
trine takes  no  account.  The  struggle  that  Adam 
underwent  in  paradise,  in  deciding  whether  to  eat 


MY  RELIGION.  119 

or  not  to  eat  the  frnit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge,  is, 
according  to  this  doctrine,  no  longer  within  the 
range  of  human  experience.  The  question  was 
decided,  once  for  all,  by  Adam  in  paradise.  Adam 
sinned  for  all ;  in  other  words,  he  did  wrong,  and  all 
men  are  irretrievably  degraded  ;  and  all  our  efforts 
to  live  by  reason  are  vain  and  even  impious.  This 
I  ought  to  know,  for  I  am  irreparably  bad.  My 
salvation  does  not  depend  upon  living  by  the  light 
of  reason,  and,  after  distinguishing  between  good 
and  evil,  choosing  the  good ;  no,  Adam,  once  for 
all,  sinned  for  me,  and  Jesus,  once  for  all,  has 
atoned  for  the  wrong  committed  by  Adam ;  and  so 
I  ought,  as  a  looker-on,  to  mourn  over  the  fall  of 
Adam  and  rejoice  at  the  redemption  through  Jesus. 

All  the  love  for  truth  and  goodness  in  the  heart 
of  man,  all  his  efforts  to  illuminate  his  spiritual  life 
by  the  light  of  reason,  are  not  only  of  slight 
importance,  according  to  this  doctrine  ;  they  are  a 
temptation,  an  incitement  to  pride.  Life  as  it  is 
upon  this  earth,  with  all  its  joys  and  its  splendors, 
its  struggles  of  reason  with  darkness,,- — the  life  of 
all  men  that  have  lived  before  me,  my  own  life  with 
its  inner  struggles  and  triumphs,  —  all  this  is  not 
the  true  life  ;  it  is  the  fallen  life,  a  life  irretrievably 
bad.  The  true  life,  the  life  without  sin,  is  only  in 
faith,  that  is,  in  imagination,  that  is,  in  lunacy. 

Let  any  one  break  the  habit  contracted  from 
infancy  of  believing  in  all  this  ;  let  him  look  boldly 
at  this  doctrine  as  it  is ;  let  him  endeavor  to  put 
himself  in  the  position  of  a  man  without  prejudice, 


120  MY  RELIGION. 

educated  independently  of  this  doctrine  —  and  then 
let  him  ask  himself  if  this  doctrine  would  not 
appear  to  such  a  man  as  a  product  of  absolute 
insanity. 

However  strange  and  shocking  all  this  might  ap- 
pear to  me,  I  was  obliged  to  examine  into  it,  for 
here  alone  I  found  the  explanation  of  the  objection, 
so  devoid  of  logic  and  common-sense,  that  I  heard 
everywhere  with  regard  to  the  impossibility  of  prac- 
tising the  doctrine  of  Jesus :  It  is  admirable,  and 
would  give  true  happiness  to  men,  but  men  are  not 
able  to  obey  it. 

Only  a  conviction  that  reality  does  not  exist,  and 
that  the  non-existent  is  real,  could  lead  men  to  this 
surprising  contradiction.  And  this  false  conviction 
I  found  in  the  pseudo-Christian  religion  which  men 
had  been  teaching  for  fifteen  hundred  years. 

The  objection  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  excel- 
lent but  impracticable,  comes  not  only  from  believers, 
but  from  sceptics,  from  those  who  do  not  believe,  or 
think  that  they  do  not  believe,  in  the  dogmas  of  the 
fall  of  man  and  the  redemption ;  from  men  of 
science  and  philosophers  who  consider  themselves 
free  from  all  prejudice.  They  believe,  or  imagine 
that  the}*  believe,  in  nothing,  and  so  consider  them- 
selves as  above  such  a  superstition  as  the  dogma  of 
the  fall  and  the  redemption.  At  first  it  seemed  to 
me  that  all  such  persons  had  serious  motives  for 
denying  the  possibility  of  practising  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus.  But  when  I  came  to  look  into  the  source  of 
their  negation,  I  was  convinced  that  the  sceptics,  in 


MY  RELIGION.  121 

s 

common  with  the  believers,  have  a  false  conception 

of  life  ;  to  them  life  is  not  what  it  is,  but  what  they 
imagine  it  ought  to  be,  —  and  this  conception  rests 
upon  the  same  foundation  as  does  that  of  the  be- 
lievers. It  is  true  that  the  sceptics,  who  pretend 
to  believe  in  nothing,  believe  not  in  God,  or  in 
Jesus,  or  in  Adam  ;  but  they  believe  in  a  funda- 
mental idea  which  is  at  the  basis  of  their  miscon- 
ception, — -  in  the  rights  of  man  to  a  life  of  happi- 
ness,— much  more  firmly  than  do  the  theologians. 

In  vain  do  science  and  philosophy  pose  as  the 
arbiters  of  the  human  mind,  of  which  they  are  in 
fact  only  the  servants.  Religion  has  provided  a 
conception  of  life,  and  science  travels  in  the  beaten 
path.  Religion  reveals  the  meaning  of  life,  and 
science  only  applies  this  meaning  to  the  course  of 
circumstances.  And  so,  if  religion  falsifies  the 
meaning  of  human  life,  science,  which  builds  upon 
the  same  foundation,  can  only  make  manifest  the 
same  fantastic  ideas. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  men 
have  a  right  to  happiness,  and  this  happiness  is  not 
the  result  of  their  own  efforts,  but  of  external 
causes.  This  conception  has  become  the  base  of 
science  and  philosophy.  Religion,  science,  and 
public  opinion  all  unite  in  telling  us  that  the  life  we 
now  live  is  bad,  and  at  the  same  time  they  affirm 
that  the  doctrine  which  teaches  us  how  we  can  suc- 
ceed in  ameliorating  life  by  becoming  better,  is  an 
impracticable  doctrine.  Religion  says  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus,  which  provides  a  reasonable  method 


122  MY  RELIGION. 

for  the  improvement  of  life  by  our  own  efforts,  is 
impracticable  because  Adam  fell  and  the  world  was 
plunged  into  sin.  Philosophy  saj'S  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  is  impracticable  because  human  life 
is  developed  according  to  laws  that  are  independent 
of  the  human  will.  In  other  words,  the  conclusions 
of  science  and  philosophy  are  exactly  the  same  as 
the  conclusion  reached  by  religion  in  the  dogmas  of 
original  sin  and  the  redemption. 

There  are  two  leading  theses  at  the  basis  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  redemption:  (1)  the  normal  life  of 
man  is  a  life  of  happiness,  but  our  life  on  earth  is 
one  of  misery,  and  it  can  never  be  bettered  b}'  our 
own  efforts ;  (2)  our  salvation  is  in  faith,  which 
enables  us  to  escape  from  this  life  of  misery. 
These  two  theses  are  the  source  of  the  religious 
conceptions  of  the  believers  and  sceptics  who  make 
up  our  pseudo-Christian  societies.  The  second 
thesis  gave  birth  to  the  Church  and  its  organiza- 
tion ;  from  the  first  is  derived  the  received  tenets  of 
public  opinion  and  our  political  and  philosophical 
theories.  The  germ  of  all  political  and  philosophi- 
cal theories  that  seek  to  justify  the  existing  order  of 
things  —  such  as  Hegelianism  and  its  offshoots  —  is 
in  this  primal  thesis.  Pessimism,  which  demands 
of  life  what  it  cannot  give  and  then  denies  its  value, 
has  also  its  origin  in  the  same  dogmatic  proposition. 
Materialism,  with  its  strange  and  enthusiastic  affir- 
mation that  man  is  the  product  of  natural  forces 
and  nothing  more,  is  the  legitimate  result  of  the 
doctrine  that  teaches  that  life  on  earth  is   a  de- 


MY  RELIGION.  123 

graded  existence.  Spiritism,  with  its  learned  ad- 
herents, is  the  best  proof  we  have  that  the  conclu- 
sions of  philosophy  and  science  are  based  upon  the 
religious  doctrine  of  that  eternal  happiness  which 
should  be  the  natural  heritage  of  man. 

This  false  conception  of  life  has  had  a  deplorable 
influence  upon  all  reasonable  human  activity.  The 
dogma  of  the  fall  and  the  redemption  has  debarred 
man  from  the  most  important  and  legitimate  field 
for  the  exercise  of  his  powers,  and  has  deprived  him 
entirely  of  the  idea  that  he  can  of  himself  do  any- 
thing to  make  his  life  happier  or  better.  Science 
and  philosophy,  proudly  believing  themselves  hostile 
to  pseudo-Christianity,  only  carry  out  its  decrees. 
Science  and  philosophy  concern  themselves  with 
everything  except  the  theory  that  man  can  do  any- 
thing to  make  himself  better  or  happier.  Ethical 
and  moral  instruction  have  disappeared  from  our 
pseudo-Christian  society  without  leaving  a  trace. 

Believers  and  sceptics  who  concern  themselves  so 
little  with  the  problem  how  to  live,  how  to  make  use 
of  the  reason  with  which  we  are  endowed,  ask  why 
our  earthly  life  is  not  what  they  imagine  it  ought  to 
be,  and  when  it  will  become  what  they  wish.  This 
singular  phenomenon  is  due  to  the  false  doctrine 
which  has  penetrated  into  the  very  marrow  of 
humanity.  The  effects  of  the  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  which  man  so  unhappily  acquired  in  para- 
dise, do  not  seem  to  have  been  very  lasting ;  for, 
neglecting  the  truth  that  life  is  only  a  solution  of 
the  contradictions  between  animal  instincts  and  rea- 


124  MY  RELIGION. 

son,  he  stolidly  refrains  from  applying  his  reason  to 
the  discovery  of  the  historical  laws  that  govern  his 
animal  nature. 

Excepting  the  philosophical  doctrines  of  the 
pseudo-Christian  world,  all  the  philosophical  and 
religious  doctrines  of  which  we  have  knowledge  — 
Judaism,  the  doctrine  of  Confucius,  Buddhism, 
Brahmanism,  the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks  —  all  aim  to 
regulate  human  life,  and  to  enlighten  men  with 
regard  to  what  they  must  do  to  improve  their  condi- 
tion. The  doctrine  of  Confucius  teaches  the  per- 
fecting of  the  individual ;  Judaism,  personal  fidelity 
to  an  alliance  with  God ;  Buddhism,  how  to  escape 
from  a  life  governed  by  animal  instincts ;  Socrates 
taught  the  perfecting  of  the  individual  through  rea- 
son ;  the  Stoics  recognized  the  independence  of 
reason  as  the  sole  basis  of  the  true  life. 

The  reasonable  activity  of  man  has  always  been 
—  it  could  not  be  otherwise  —  to  light  by  the  torch 
of  reason  his  progress  toward  beatitude.  Philoso- 
phy tells  us  that  free-will  is  an  illusion,  and  then 
boasts  of  the  boldness  of  such  a  declaration.  Free- 
will is  not  only  an  illusion ;  it  is  an  empty  word 
invented  by  theologians  and  experts  in  criminal  law  ; 
to  refute  it  would  be  to  undertake  a  battle  with  a 
wind-mill.  But  reason,  which  illuminates  our  life 
and  impels  us  to  modify  our  actions,  is  not  an  illu- 
sion, and  its  authority  can  never  be  denied.  To 
obey  reason  in  the  pursuit  of  good  is  the  substance 
of  the  teachings  of  all  the  masters  of  humanity,  and 
it  is  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus :  it  is 


MY  RELIGION.  125 

reason  itself,  and  we  cannot  deny  reason  by  the  use 
of  reason. 

Making  use  of  the  phrase  "son  of  man,"  Jesus 
teaches  that  all  men  have  a  common  impulse  toward 
good  and  toward  reason,  which  leads  to  good.  It 
is  superfluous  to  attempt  to  prove  that  ' '  son  of 
man"  means  "Son  of  God."  To  understand  by 
the  words  "  son  of  man"  anything  different  from 
what  they  signify  is  to  assume  that  Jesns,  to  sa}T 
what  he  wished  to  say,  intentionally  made  use  of 
words  which  have  an  entirely  different  meaning. 
But  even  if,  as  the  Church  says,  "son  of  man" 
means  "Son  of  God,"  the  phrase  "son  of  man" 
applies  none  the  less  to  man,  for  Jesus  himself 
called  all  men  "  the  sons  of  God." 

The  doctrine  of  the  "  son  of  man"  finds  its  most 
complete  expression  in  the  interview  with  Nicode- 
mus.  Every  man,  Jesus  says,  aside  from  his  con- 
sciousness of  his  material,  individual  life  and  of  his 
birth  in  the  flesh,  has  also  a  consciousness  of  a  spir- 
itual birth  (John  iii.  5,  G,  7),  of  an  inner  libert}7,  of 
something  within ;  this  comes  from  on  high,  from 
the  infinite  that  we  call  God  (John  iii.  14-17)  ;  now 
it  is  this  inner  consciousness  born  of  God,  the  son 
of  God  in  man,  that  we  must  possess  and  nourish  if 
we  would  possess  true  life.  The  son  of  man  is 
homogeneous  (of  the  same  race)  with  God. 

Whoever  lifts  up  within  himself  this  son  of  God, 
whoever  identifies  his  life  with  the  spiritual  life,  will 
not  deviate  from  the  true  way.  Men  wander  from 
the   way  because  they  do  not  believe  in  this  light 


126  MY  RELIGION. 

which  is  within  them,  the  light  of  which  John 
speaks  when  he  says,  "  In  him  tvas  life;  cmd  the  life 
was  the  light  of  men:'  Jesus  tells  us  to  lift  up  the 
son  of  man,  who  is  the  son  of  God,  for  a  light  to  all 
men.  When  we  have  lifted  up  the  son  of  man,  we 
shall  then  know  that  we  can  do  nothing  without  his 
guidance  (John  viii.  28).  Asked,  "Who  is  this 
son  of  man  ?"    Jesus  answers  :  — 

"  Yet  a  little  while  is  the  light  in  you.1  Walk  while 
ye  have  the  light,  lest  darkness  come  upon  you :  for 
he  that  walketh  in  darkness  knoiveth  not  whither  he 
goeth:'    (John  xii.  35.) 

The  son  of  man  is  the  light  in  every  man  that 
ought  to  illuminate  his  life.  "  Take  heed  therefore, 
that  the  light  which  is  in  thee  be  not  darkness"  is 
Jesus'  warning  to  the  multitude  (Luke  xi.  35) . 

In  all  the  different  ages  of  humanity  we  find  the 
same  thought,  that  man  is  the  receptacle  of  the 
divine  light  descended  from  heaven,  and  that  this 
light  is  reason,  which  alone  should  be  the  object  of 
our  worship,  since  it  alone  can  show  the  way  to  true 
well-being.  This  has  been  said  by  the  Brahmins, 
by  the  Hebrew  prophets,  by  Confucius,  by  Soc-_ 
rates,  by  Marcus  Aurelius,  by  Epictetus,  and  by  all 
the  true  sages,  —  not  by  compilers  of  philosophical 
theories,  but  by  men  who  sought  goodness  for  them- 
selves  and   for  others.2    And  yet  we   declare,  in 

1  In  all  the  translations  authorized  by  the  Church,  we  find  here  a 
perhaps  intentional  error.  The  words  #j>  Ofup,  in  you,  are  inva- 
riably rendered  ivith  you. 

2 Marcus  Aurelius  says:  "Keverence  that  which  is  best  in  the 


MY  RELIGION.  127 

accordance  with  the  dogma  of  the  redemption,  that 
it  is  entirely  superfluous  to  think  of  the  light  that  is 
in  us,  and  that  we  ought  not  to  speak  of  it  at  all ! 

We  must,  say  the  believers,  study  the  three  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity ;  we  must  know  the  nature  of 
each  of  these  persons,  and  what  sacraments  we 
ought  or  ought  not  to  perform,  for  our  salvation 
depends,  not  on  our  own  efforts,  but  on  the  Trinity 
and  the  regular  performance  of  the  sacraments. 
We  must,  say  the  sceptics,  know  the  laws  by  which 
this  infinitesimal  particle  of  matter  was  evolved  in 
infinite  space  and  infinite  time ;  but  it  is  absurd  to 
believe  that  by  reason  alone  we  can  secure  true  well- 
being,  because  the  amelioration  of  man's  condition 
does  not  depend  upon  man  himself,  but  upon  the 
laws  that  we  are  trying  to  discover. 

I  firmly  believe  that,  a  few  centuries  hence,  the 
history  of  what  we  call  the  scientific  activity  of  this 

universe  ;  and  this  is  that  which  makes  use  of  all  things  and 
directs  all  things.  And  in  like  manner  also  reverence  that 
which  is  best  in  thyself;  and  this  is  of  the  same  kind  as  that. 
For  in  thyself,  also,  that  which  makes  use  of  everything  else,  is 
this,  and  thy  life  is  directed  by  this."     (Meditations  v.  21.) 

Epictetus  says  :  "From  God  have  descended  the  seeds  not 
only  to  my  father  and  grandfather,  but  to  all  beings  which  are 
generated  on  the  earth  and  are  produced,  and  particularly  to 
rational  beings;  for  these  only  are  by  their  nature  formed  to 
have  communion  with  God,  being  by  means  of  reason  conjoined 
with  him."     (Discourses,  chap,  ix.) 

Confucius  says  :  "  The  law  of  the  great  learning  consists 
in  developing  and  re-establishing  the  luminous  principle  of 
reason  which  we  have  received  from  on  high."  This  sentence  is 
repeated  many  times,  and  constitutes  the  basis  of  Confucius' 
doctrine. 


128  MY  RELIGION. 

age  will  be  a  prolific  subject  for  the  hilarity  and 
pity  of  future  generations.  For  a  number  of  cen- 
turies, they  will  say,  the  scholars  of  the  western 
portion  of  a  great  continent  were  the  victims  of 
epidemic  insanity ;  they  imagined  themselves  to  be 
the  possessors  of  a  life  of  eternal  beatitude,  and 
they  busied  themselves  with  divers  lucubrations  in 
which  they  sought  to  determine  in  what  way  this 
life  could  be  realized,  without  doing  anything  them- 
selves, or  even  concerning  themselves  with  what 
they  ought  to  do  to  ameliorate  the  life  which  they 
already  had.  And  what  to  the  future  historian  will 
seem  much  more  melancholy,  it  will  be  found  that 
this  group  of  men  had  once  had  a  master  who 
had  taught  them  a  number  of  simple  and  clear 
rules,  pointing  out  what  they  must  do  to  render 
their  lives  happ}T, —  and  that  the  words  of  this 
master  had  been  construed  by  some  to  mean  that  he 
would  come  on  a  cloud  to  re-organize  human  society, 
and  by  others  as  admirable  doctrine,  but  impracti- 
cable, since  human  life  was  not  what  the}'  conceived 
it  to  be,  and  consequently  was  not  worthy  of  con- 
sideration; as  to  human  reason,  it  must  concern 
itself  with  the  study  of  the  laws  of  an  imaginary 
existence,  without  concerning  itself  about  the  wel- 
fare of  the  individual  man. 

The  Church  says  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  can- 
not be  literally  practised  here  on  earth,  because  this 
earthly  life  is  naturally  evil,  since  it  is  only  a  shadow 
of  the  true  life.  The  best  way  of  living  is  to  scorn 
this  earthly  existence,  to  be  guided  by  faith  (that  is, 


MY  RELIGION.  129 

by  imagination)  in  a  happy  and  eternal  life  to  come, 
and  to  continue  to  live  a  bad  life  here  and  to  pray 
to  the  good  God. 

Philosophy,  science,  and  public  opinion  all  say 
that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  not  applicable  to 
human  life  as  it  now  is,  because  the  life  of  man 
does  not  depend  upon  the  light  of  reason,  but  upon 
general  laws  ;  hence  it  is  useless  to  try  to  live  abso- 
lutely conformable  to  reason ;  we  must  live  as  we 
can  with  the  firm  conviction  that  according  to  the 
laws  of  historical  and  sociological  progress,  after 
having  lived  very  imperfectly  for  a  very  long  time, 
.we  shall  suddenly  find  that  our  lives  have  become 
very  good. 

People  come  to  a  farm ;  they  find  there  all  that  is 
necessary  to  sustain  life, — a  house  well  furnished, 
barns  filled  with  grain,  cellars  and  store-rooms  well 
stocked  with  provisions,  implements  of  husbandry, 
horses  and  cattle,  —  in  a  word,  all  that  is  needed  for 
a  life  of  comfort  and  ease.  Each  wishes  to  profit 
by  this  abundance,  but  each  for  himself,  without 
thinking  of  others,  or  of  those  who  may  come  after 
him.  Each  wants  the  whole  for  himself,  and  begins 
to  seize  upon  all  that  he  can  possibly  grasp.  Then 
begins  a  veritable  pillage  ;  the}'  fight  for  the  posses- 
sion of  the  spoils  ;  oxen  and  sheep  are  slaughtered  ; 
wagons  and  other  implements  are  broken  up  into 
firewood  ;  they  fight  for  the  milk  and  grain  ;  they 
grasp  more  than  they  can  consume.  No  one  is  able 
to  sit  down  to  the  tranquil  enjoyment  of  what  he 
has,   lest   another   take    away   the   spoils    already 


130  MY  RELIGION. 

secured,  to  surrender  them  in  turn  to  some  one 
stronger.  All  these  people  leave  the  farm,  bruised 
and  famished.  Thereupon  the  Master  puts  every- 
thing to  rights,  and  arranges  matters  so  that  one  may 
live  there  in  peace.  The  farm  is  again  a  treasury 
of  abundance.  Then  comes  another  group  of 
seekers,  and  the  same  struggle  and  tumult  is  re- 
peated, till  these  in  their  turn  go  away  bruised  and 
angry,  cursing  the  Master  for  providing  so  little 
and  so  ill.  The  good  Master  is  not  discouraged  ;  he 
again  provides  for  all  that  is  needed  to  sustain  life, 
—  and  the  same  incidents  are  repeated  over  and 
over  again. 

Finally,  among  those  who  come  to  the  farm,  is  one 
who  says  to  his  companions:  "Comrades,  how 
foolish  we  are !  see  how  abundantly  everything  is 
supplied,  how  well  everything  is  arranged !  There  is 
enough  here  for  us  and  for  those  who  will  come 
after  us ;  let  us  act  in  a  reasonable  manner.  In- 
stead of  robbing  each  other,  let  us  help  one  another. 
Let  us  work,  plant,  care  for  the  dumb  animals,  and 
every  one  will  be  satisfied."  Some  of  the  company 
understand  what  this  wise  person  says ;  they  cease 
from  fighting  and  from  robbing  one  another,  and 
begin  to  work.  But  others,  who  have  not  heard  the 
words  of  the  wise  man,  or  who  distrust  him,  con- 
tinue their  former  pillage  of  the  Master's  goods. 
This  condition  of  things  lasts  for  a  long  time. 
Those  who  have  followed  the  counsels  of  the  wise 
man  say  to  those  about  them:  "  Cease  from  fight- 
ing, cease  from  wasting  the  Master's  goods ;  you 


MY  RELIGION.  131 

will  be  better  off  for  doing  so  ;  follow  the  wise  man's 
advice."  Nevertheless,  a  great  many  do  not  hear 
and  will  not  believe,  and  matters  go  on  very  much 
as  they  did  before. 

All  this  is  natural,  and  will  continue  as  long  as 
people  do  not  believe  the  wise  man's  words.  But, 
we  are  told,  a  time  will  come  when  every  one  on  the 
farm  will  listen  to  and  understand  the  words  of  the 
wise  man,  and  will  realize  that  God  spoke  through 
his  lips,  and  that  the  wise  man  was  himself  none 
other  than  God  in  person ;  and  all  will  have  faith  in 
his  words.  Meanwhile,  instead  of  living  according 
to  the  advice  of  the  wise  man,  each  struggles  for  his 
own,  and  they  sla}'  each  other  without  pity,  saying, 
4 'The  struggle  for  existence  is  inevitable  ;  we  can- 
not do  otherwise." 

What  does  it  all  mean  ?  Even  the  beasts  graze  in 
the  fields  without  interfering  with  each  other's  needs, 
and  men,  after  having  learned  the  conditions  of  the 
true  life,  and  after  being  convinced  that  God  him- 
self has  shown  them  how  to  live  the  true  life,  follow 
still  their  evil  ways,  saying  that  it  is  impossible  to 
live  otherwise.  What  should  we  think  of  the  people 
at  the  farm  if,  after  having  heard  the  words  of  the 
wise  man,  they  had  continued  to  live  as  before, 
snatching  the  bread  from  each  other's  mouths,  fight- 
ing, and  trying  to  grasp  everything,  to  their  own 
loss  ?  We  should  say  that  they  had  misunderstood 
the  wise  man's  words,  and  imagined  things  to  be 
different  from  what  they  really  were.  The  wise  man 
said  to  them,  M  Your  life  here  is  bad ;  amend  your 


132  MY  RELIGION. 

ways,  and  it  will  become  good."  And  they  imag- 
ined that  the  wise  man  had  condemned  their  life  on 
the  farm,  and  had  promised  them  another  and  a 
better  life  somewhere  else.  They  decided  that  the 
farm  was  only  a  temporary  dwelling-place,  and  that 
it  was  not  worth  while  to  try  to  live  well  there ;  the 
important  thing  was  not  to  be  cheated  out  of  the 
other  life  promised  them  elsewhere.  This  is  the 
only  way  in  which  we  can  explain  the  strange  con- 
duct of  the  people  on  the  farm,  of  whom  some 
believed  that  the  wise  man  was  God,  and  others  that 
he  was  a  man  of  wisdom,  but  all  continued  to  live  as 
before  in  defiance  of  the  wise  man's  words.  They 
understood  everything  but  the  one  significant  truth 
in  the  wise  man's  teachings,  —  that  they  must  work 
out  for  themselves  their  own  peace  and  happiness 
there  on  the  farm,  which  they  took  for  a  temporary 
abode  thinking  all  the  time  of  the  better  life  they 
were  to  possess  elsewhere. 

Here  is  the  origin  of  the  strange  declaration  that 
the  precepts  of  the  wise  man  were  admirable,  even 
divine,  but  that  they  were  difficult  to  practise. 

Oh,  if  men  would  only  cease  from  evil  wa}s  while 
waiting  for  the  Christ  to  come  in  his  chariot  of  fire 
to  their  aid ;  if  they  would  only  cease  to  invoke  the 
law  of  the  differentiation  or  integration  of  forces,  or 
any  historical  law  whatever !  None  will  come  to 
their  aid  if  they  do  not  aid  themselves.  And  to  aid 
ourselves  to  a  better  life,  we  need  expect  nothing 
from  heaven  or  from  earth ;  we  need  only  to  cease 
from  ways  that  result  in  our  own  loss. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

IF  it  be  admitted  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  per- 
fectly reasonable,  and  that  it  alone  can  give  to 
men  true  happiness,  what  would  be  the  condition  of 
a  single  follower  of  that  doctrine  in  the  midst  of  a 
world  that  did  not  practise  it  at  all?  If  all  men 
would  decide  at  the  same  time  to  obey,  its  practice 
would  then  be  possible.  But  one  man  alone  cannot 
act  in  defiance  of  the  whole  world  ;  and  so  we  hear 
continually  this  plea :  "If,  among  men  who  do  not 
practise  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  I  alone  obey  it ;  if  I 
give  away  all  that  I  possess  ;  if  I  turn  the  other  cheek  ; 
if  I  refuse  to  take  an  oath  or  to  go  to  war,  I  should 
find  myself  in  profound  isolation  ;  if  1  did  not  die  of 
hunger,  I  should  be  beaten  ;  if  I  survived  that,  I 
should  be  cast  into  prison  ;  I  should  be  shot,  and 
all  the  happiness  of  my  life  —  my  life  itself  —  would 
be  sacrificed  in  vain." 

This  plea  is  founded  upon  the  doctrine  of  quid  pro 
quo,  which  is  the  basis  of  all  arguments  against  the 
possibility  of  practising  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  It  is 
the  current  objection,  and  I  sympathized  with  it  in 
common  with  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  until  I  finally 
broke  entirely  away  from  the  dogmas  of  the  Church 
which  prevented  me  from  understanding  the  true  sig- 
nificance of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  Jesus  proposed 
his  doctrine  as  a  means  of  salvation  from  the  life  of 


134  MY  RELIGION. 

perdition  organized  by  men  contrary  to  his  precepts ; 
find  I  declared  that  I  should  be  very  glad  to  follow 
this  doctrine  if  it  were  not  for  fear  of  this  very  per- 
dition. Jesus  offered  me  the  true  remedy  against  a 
life  of  perdition,  and  I  clung  to  the  life  of  perdition  ! 
from  which  it  was  plain  that  1  did  not  consider  this 
life  as  a  life  of  perdition,  but  as  something  good, 
something  real.  The  conviction  that  my  personal, 
worldly  life  was  something  real  and  good  constituted 
the  misunderstanding,  the  obstacle,  that  prevented 
me  from  comprehending  Jesus'  doctrine.  Jesus 
knew  the  disposition  of  men  to  regard  their  personal, 
worldly  life  as  real  and  good,  and  so,  in  a  series  of 
apothegms  and  parables,  he  taught  them  that  they 
had  no  right  to  life,  and  that  they  were  given  life 
only  that  they  might  assure  themselves  of  the  true 
life  by  renouncing  their  worldly  and  fantastic  organ- 
ization of  existence. 

To  understand  what  is  meant  by  "  saving  "  one's 
life,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  we  must  first 
understand  what  the  prophets,  what  Solomon,  what 
Buddha,  what  all  the  wise  men  of  the  world  have 
said  about  the  personal  life  of  man.  But,  as  Pascal 
says,  we  cannot  endure  to  think  upon  this  theme, 
and  so  we  carry  always  before  us  a  screen  to  conceal 
the  abyss  of  death,  toward  which  we  are  constantly 
moving.  It  suffices  to  reflect  on  the  isolation  of  the 
personal  life  of  man,  to  be  convinced  that  this  life, 
in  so  far  as  it  is  personal,  is  not  only  of  no  account 
to  each  separately,  but  that  it  is  a  cruel  jest  to  heart 
and  reason.     To  understand  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 


MY  RELIGION.  135 

we  must,  before  all,  return  to  ourselves,  reflect 
soberly,  undergo  the  jxeravota  of  which  John  the  Bap- 
tist, the  precursor  of  Jesus,  speaks,  when  addressing 
himself  to  men  of  clouded  judgment.  "Repent" 
(such  was  his  preaching)  ;  "repent,  have  another 
mind,  or  you  shall  all  perish.  The  axe  is  laid  unto 
the  root  of  the  trees.  Death  and  perdition  await 
each  one  of  you.  Be  warned,  turn  back,  repent." 
And  Jesus  declared,  "  Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all 
likewise  perish."  When  Jesus  was  told  of  the  death 
of  the  Galileans  massacred  by  Pilate,  he  said :  — 

"  Suppose  ye  that  these  Galileans  were  sinners  above 
all  the  Galileans,  because  they  suffered  such  things? 
I  tell  you,  Nay :  but,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  like- 
wise perish.  Or  those  eighteen  upon  whom  the  tower 
in  Siloam  fell,  and  slew  them,  think  ye  that  they  were 
sinners  above  all  men  that  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  ?  I  tell 
you,  Nay :  but,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise 
perish."     (Luke  xiii.  1-5.) 

If  he  had  lived  in  our  day,  in  Russia,  he  would 
have  said  :  "  Think  you  that  those  who  perished  in 
the  circus  at  Berditchef  or  on  the  slopes  of  Koukouyef 
were  sinners  a^ove  all  others?  I  tell  you,  No;  but 
you,  if  you  do  not  repent,  if  you  do  not  arouse  your- 
selves, if  you  do  not  find  in  your  life  that  which  is 
imperishable,  you  also  shall  perish.  You  are  horri- 
fied by  the  death  of  those  crushed  by  the  tower, 
burned  in  the  circus ;  but  your  death,  equally  as 
frightful  and  as  inevitable,  is  here,  before  you.  You 
are  wrong  to  conceal  it  or  to  forget  it ;  unlooked  for, 
it  is  only  more  hideous." 


136  MY  RELIGION. 

To  the  people  of  his  own  time  he  said  :  — 

"  When  ye  see  a  cloud  rise  out  of  the  west,  straight- 
way ye  say,  There  cometh  a  shower;  and  so  it  is. 
And  when  ye  see  the  south  wind  blow,  ye  say,  There 
will  be  heat;  and  it  cometh  to  pass.  Ye  hypocrites, 
ye  can  discern  the  face  of  the  sky  and  of  the  earth;  but 
how  is  it  that  ye  do  not  discern  this  time  ?  Yea,  and 
why  even  of  yourselves  judge  ye  not  what  is  right?" 
(Luke  xii.  54-57.) 

We  know  how  to  interpret  the  signs  of  the  weather ; 
why,  then,  do  we  not  see  what  is  before  us?  It  is 
iu  vain  that  we  fly  from  clanger,  and  guard  our  mate- 
rial life  by  all  imaginable  means  ;  in  spite  of  all, 
death  is  before  us,  if  not  in  one  way,  then  in  another ; 
if  not  by  massacre,  or  the  falling  of  a  tower,  then  in 
our  beds,  amidst  much  greater  suffering. 

Make  a  simple  calculation,  as  those  do  who  under- 
take any  worldly  project,  any  enterprise  whatever, 
such  as  the  construction  of  a  house,  or  the  purchase 
of  an  estate,  such  as  those  make  who  labor  with  the 
hope  of  seeing  their  calculations  realized. 

1 '  For  which  of  you  intending  to  build  a  tower,  sit- 
tcth  not  down  first,  and  counteth  the  cost  whether  he 
have  sufficient  to  finish  it?  Lest  haply,  after  he  hath 
laid  the  foundation,  and  is  not  able  to  finish  it,  all  that 
behold  it  begin  to  mock  him,  saying,  This  man  began 
to  build,  and  was  not  able  to  finish.  Or  what  king, 
going  to  make  war  against  another  king,  sitteth  not 
down  first  and  consulteth  whether  he  be  able  ivith  ten 
thousand  to  meet  him  that  cometh  against  him  with 
twenty  thousand?"     (Luke  xiv.  28-31.) 


MY  RELIGION.  137 

la  it  not  the  act  of  a  madman  to  labor  at  what, 
under  any  circumstances,  one  can  never  finish? 
Death  will  always  come  before  the  edifice  of  worldly 
prosperity  can  be  completed.  And  if  we  knew  before- 
hand" that,  however  we  may  struggle  with  death,  it 
is  not  we,  but  death,  that  will  triumph  ;  is  it  not  an 
indication  that  we  ought  not  to  struggle  with  death, 
or  to  set  our  hearts  upon  that  which  will  surely  per- 
ish, but  to  seek  to  perform  the  task  whose  results 
cannot  be  destroyed  by  our  inevitable  departure? 

"And  he  said  unto  his  disciples.  Therefore  I  say 
unto  you,  Take  no  thought  for  your  life  what  ye  shall 
eat;  neither  for  the  body,  what  ye  shall  put  on.  The 
life  is  more  than  meat  and  the  body  is  more  than  rai- 
ment. Consider  the  ravens :  for  they  neither  sow  nor 
reap;  ivhich  neither  have  storehouse  nor  barn;  and 
God  feedeth  them :  How  much  more  are  ye  better  than 
the  fowls  ?  And  ivhich  of  you  with  taking  thought  can 
add  to  his  stature  one  cubit?  If  ye  then  be  not  able  to 
do  that  thing  which  is  least,  why  take  ye  thought  for 
the  rest?  Consider  the  lilies  how  they  grow :  they  toil 
not,  they  spin  not;  and  yet  I  say  unto  you  that  Solo- 
mon in  all  his  glory  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these." 
(Luke  xii.  22-27.) 

Whatever  pains  we  may  take  for  our  nourishment, 
for  the  care  of  the  body,  we  cannot  prolong  life  by 
a  single  hour.1  Is  it  not  folly  to  trouble  ourselves 
about  a  thing  that  we  cannot  possibly  accomplish  ? 

1  The  words  of  verse  25  are  incorrectly  translated;  the 
word  yXiKiav  means  aye,  aye  of  life :  consequently  the  whole 
phrase  should  he  rendered:  can  add  one  hour  to  his  life. 


138  MY  RELIGION. 

We  know  perfectly  well  that  our  material  life  will 
end  with  death,  and  we  give  ourselves  up  to  evil  to 
procure  riches.  Life  cannot  be  measured  by  what 
we  possess ;  if  we  think  so,  we  only  delude  our- 
selves. Jesus  tells  us  that  the  meaning  of  life  does 
not  lie  in  what  we  possess  or  in  what  we  can  accu- 
mulate, but  in  something  entirely  different.  He 
says :  — 

"  The  ground  of  a  certain  rich  man  brought  forth 
plentifully:  And  he  thought  within  himself,  saying, 
WJiat  shall  I  do,  because  I  have  no  room  where  to 
bestow  my  fruits?  And  he  said,  This  will  I  do :  I 
will  pull  down  my  bams,  and  build  greater;  and  there 
will  I  bestow  all  my  fruits  and  my  goods.  And  I  will 
say  to  my  soul,  Soul,  thou  hast  much  goods  laid  up 
for  many  years;  take  thine  ease,  eat,  drink,  and  be 
merry.  But  God  said  unto  him,  Thou  fool,  this  night 
thy  soul  shall  be  required  of  thee :  then  whose  shall 
those  things  be,  which  thou  hast  provided?  So  is  he 
that  layeth  up  treasure  for  himself,  and  is  not  rich 
toward  God."     (Luke  xii.  16—21.) 

Death  threatens  us  every  moment ;  Jesus  says  :  — 
"  Let  your  loins  be  girded  about,  and  your  lights 
burning;  and  ye  yourselves  like  unto  men  that  wait 
for  their  lord,  when  he  will  return  from  the  wedding ; 
that,  when  he  cometh  and  knocketh,  they  may  open 
unto  him  immediately.  Blessed  are  those  servants, 
whom  the  lord  when  he  cometh  shall  find  ivatching; 
.  .  .  And  if  he  shall  come  in  the  second  watch,  or 
come  in  the  third  watch,  and  find  them  so,  blessed  are 
those  servants.     And  this  know,  that  if  the  goodman 


MY  RELIGION.  139 

of  the  house  had  known  what  hour  the  thief  ivould 
come,  he  would  have  watched,  and  not  have  suffered 
his  house  to  be  broken  through.  Be  ye  therefore  ready 
also :  for  the  son  of  man  cometh  at  an  hour  ivhen  ye 
think  not."     (Luke  xii.  35-40.) 

The  parable  of  the  virgins  waiting  for  the  bride- 
groom, that  of  the  consummation  of  the  age  and  the 
last  judgment,  as  the  commentators  all  agree,  are 
designed  to  teach  that  death  awaits  us  at  every 
moment.  Death  awaits  us  at  every  moment.  Life 
is  passed  in  sight  of  death.  If  we  labor  for  our- 
selves alone,  for  our  personal  future,  we  know  that 
what  awaits  us  in  the  future  is  death.  And  death 
will  destro}'  all  the  fruits  of  our  labor.  Conse- 
quently, a  life  for  self  can  have  no  meaning.  The 
reasonable  life  is  different ;  it  has  another  aim  than 
the  poor  desires  of  a  single  individual.  The  reason- 
able life  consists  in  living  in  such  a  way  that  life 
cannot  be  destroyed  by  death.  We  are  troubled 
about  many  things,  but  only  one  thing  is  necessary. 

From  the  moment  of  his  birth,  man  is  menaced  by 
an  inevitable  peril,  that  is,  by  a  life  deprived  of 
meaning,  and  a  wretched  death,  if  he  does  not  dis- 
cover the  thing  essential  to  the  true  life.  Now  it  is 
precisely  this  one  thing  which  insures  the  true  life 
that  Jesus  reveals  to  men.  He  invents  nothing,  he 
promises  nothing  through  divine  power  ;  side  by  side 
with  this  personal  life,  which  is  a  delusion,  he  simply 
reveals  to  men  the  truth. 

In  the  parable  of  the  husbandmen  (Matt.  xxi. 
33-42) ,  Jesus  explains  the  cause  of  that  blindness  in 


140  MY  RELIGION. 

men  which  conceals  the  truth  from  them,  and  wh'ch 
impels  them  to  take  the  apparent  for  the  real,  their 
personal  life  for  the  true  life.  Certain  men,  having 
leased  a  vineyard,  imagined  that  they  were  its  mas- 
ters. And  this  delusion  leads  them  into  a  series  of 
foolish  and  cruel  actions,  which  ends  in  their  exile. 
So  each  one  of  us  imagines  that  life  is  his  personal 
property,  and  that  he  has  a  right  to  enjoy  it  in  such 
a  way  as  may  seem  to  him  good,  without  recogniz- 
ing any  obligation  to  others.  And  the  inevitable 
consequence  of  this  delusion  is  a  series  of  foolish 
and  cruel  actions  followed  by  exclusion  from  life. 
And  as  the  husbandmen  killed  the  servants  and  at 
last  the  son  of  the  householder,  thinking  that  the 
more  cruel  they  were,  the  better  able  they  would  be 
to  gain  their  ends,  so  we  imagine  that  we  shall  ob- 
tain the  greatest  security  by  means  of  violence. 

Expulsion,  the  inevitable  sentence  visited  upon 
the  husbandmen  for  having  taken  to  themselves  the 
fruits  of  the  vineyard,  awaits  also  all  men  who 
imagine  that  the  personal  life  is  the  true  life.  Death 
expels  them  from  life  ;  they  are  replaced  by  others, 
as  a  consequence  of  the  error  which  led  them  to 
misconceive  the  meaning  of  life.  As  the  husband- 
men forgot,  or  did  not  wish  to  remember,  that  they 
had  received  a  vineyard  already  hedged  about  and 
provided  with  winepress  and  tower,  that  some  one 
had  labored  for  them  and  expected  them  to  labor  in 
their  turn  for  others  ;  —  so  the  men  who  would  live 
for  themselves  forget,  or  do  not  wish  to  remember, 
all  that  has  been  done  for  them  during  their  life ; 


MY  RELIGION.  141 

they  forget  that  they  are  under  an  obligation  to  labor 
in  their  turn,  and  that  all  the  blessings  of  life  which 
the}'  enjoy  are  fruits  that  they  ought  to  divide  with 
others. 

This  new  manner  of  looking  at  life,  this  fierdvoia, 
or  repentance,  is  the  corner-stone  of  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus.  According  to  this  doctrine,  men  ought  to 
understand  and  feel  that  they  are  insolvent,  as  the 
husbandmen  should  have  understood  and  felt  that 
they  were  insolvent  to  the  householder,  unable  to 
pay  the  debt  contracted  by  generations  past,  present, 
and  to  come,  with  the  overruling  power.  They 
ought  to  feel  that  every  hour  of  their  existence  is 
for  the  redemption  of  this  debt,  and  that  every  man 
who,  by  a  selfish  life,  rejects  this  obligation,  sepa- 
rates himself  from  the  principle  of  life,  and  so  for- 
feits life.  P^ach  one  should  remember  that  in  striving 
to  save  his  own  life,  his  personal  life,  he  loses  the 
true  life,  as  Jesus  so  many  times  said.  The  true 
life  is  the  life  which  adds  something  to  the  store  of 
happiness  accumulated  by  past  generations,  which 
increases  this  heritage  in  the  present,  and  hands  it 
down  to  the  future.  To  take  part  in  this  true  life, 
man  should  renounce  his  personal  will  for  the  will  of 
the  Father,  who  gives  this  life  to  man.  In  John  viii. 
35,  we  read:  — 

"  And  the  servant  abideth  not  in  the  house  forever : 
but  the  son  abideth  forever ." 

That  is,  only  the  son  who  observes  the  will  of  the 
father  shall  have  eternal  life.  Now,  the  will  of  the 
Father  of  Life  is  not  the  personal,  selfish  life,  but 


142  MY  RELIGION. 

the  filial  life  of  the  son  of  man  ;  and  so  a  man  saves 
his  life  when  he  considers  it  as  a  pledge,  as  something 
confided  to  him  by  the  Father  for  the  profit  of  all,  as 
something  with  which  to  live  the  life  of  the  son  of 
man. 

A  man,  about  to  travel  into  a  far  country,  called  his 
servants  together  and  divided  among  them  his  goods. 
Although  receiving  no  precise  instructions  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  they  were  to  use  these  goods,  some 
of  the  servants  understood  that  the  goods  still  be- 
longed to  the  master,  and  that  they  ought  to  employ 
them  for  the  master's  gain.  And  the  servants  who 
had  labored  for  the  good  of  the  master  were  rewarded, 
while  the  others,  who  had  not  so  labored.,  Tere  de- 
spoiled even  of  what  they  had  received.  (Matt.  xxv. 
14-46.) 

The  life  of  the  son  of  man  has  been  given  to  all 
men,  and  they  know  not  why.  Some  of  them  under- 
stand that  life  is  not  for  their  personal  use,  but  that 
they  must  use  it  for  the  good  of  the  son  of  man  ; 
others,  feigning  not  to  understand  the  true  object  of 
life,  refuse  to  labor  for  the  son  of  man  ;  and  those 
that  labor  for  the  true  life  will  be  united  with  the 
source  of  life  ;  those  that  do  not  so  labor,  will  lose 
the  life  they  already  have.  Jesus  tells  us  in  what 
the  service  of  the  son  of  man  consists  and  what  will 
be  the  recompense  of  that  service.  The  son  of  man, 
endowed  with  kingly  authority,  will  call  upon  the 
faithful  to  inherit  the  true  life ;  they  have  fed  the 
hungry,  given  drink  to  the  thirsty,  clothed  and  con- 
soled the  wretched,  and  in  so  doing  the}*  have  minis- 


MY  RELIGION.  143 

tcred  to  the  son  of  man,  who  is  the  same  in  all  men ; 
the}'  have  not  lived  the  personal  life,  but  the  life  of 
the  son  of  man,  and  they  are  given  the  life  eternal. 
According  to  all  the  Gospels,  the  object  of  Jesus* 
teaching  was  the  life  eternal.  And,  strange  as  it 
may  seem,  Jesus,  who  is  supposed  to  have  been 
raised  in  person,  and  to  have  promised  a  general 
resurrection,  —  Jesus  not  only  said  nothing  in 
affirmation  of  individual  resurrection  and  individual 
immortality  be3'ond  the  grave,  but  on  the  contrary, 
every  time  that  he  met  with  this  superstition  (in- 
troduced at  this  period  into  the  Talmud,  and  of 
which  there  is  not  a  trace  in  the  records  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets),  he  did  not  fail  to  deny  its 
truth.  The  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  were  con- 
stantly discussing  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  The  Pharisees  believed  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  in  angels,  and  in  spirits  (Acts 
xxiii.  8) ,  but  the  Sadducees  did  not  believe  in  resur- 
rection, or  angel,  or  spirit.  We  do  not  know  the 
source  of  the  difference  in  belief,  but  it  is  certain 
that  it  was  one  of  the  polemical  subjects  among  the 
secondary  questions  of  the  Hebraic  doctrine  that 
were  constantly  under  discussion  in  the  synagogues. 
And  Jesus  not  only  did  not  recognize  the  resurrec- 
tion, but  denied  it  every  time  he  met  with  the  idea. 
When  the  Sadducees  demanded  of  Jesus,  supposing 
that  he  believed  with  the  Pharisees  in  the  resurrec- 
tion, to  which  of  the  seven  brethren  the  woman 
should  belong,  he  refuted  with  clearness  and  pre- 
cision  the  idea  of   individual  resurrection,   saying 


144  MY  RELIGION. 

that  on  this  subject  the}r  erred,  knowing  neither  the 
Scriptures  nor  the  power  of  God.  Those  who  are 
worthy  of  resurrection,  he  said,  will  remain  like  the 
angels  of  heaven  (Mark  xii.  21-24)  ;  and  with 
regard  to  the  dead  :  — 

"  Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in 
the  bush  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am,  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob?1  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God 
of  the  living:  ye,  therefore,  do  greatly  err."  (Mark 
xii.  26,  27.) 

Jesus'  meaning  was  that  the  dead  are  living  in 
God.  God  said  to  Moses,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham, and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob."  To  God,  all 
those  who  have  lived  the  life  of  the  son  of  man,  are 
living.  Jesus  affirmed  only  this,  that  whoever  lives 
in  God,  will  be  united  to  God  ;  and  he  admitted  no 
other  idea  of  the  resurrection.  As  to  personal 
resurrection,  strange  as  it  may  appear  to  those  who 
have  never  carefully  studied  the  Gospels  for  them- 
selves, Jesus  said  nothing  about  it  whatever. 

If,  as  the  theologians  teach,  the  foundation  of  the 
Christian  faith  is  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  is  it  not 
strange  that  Jesus,  knowing  of  his  own  resurrection, 
knowing  that  in  this  consisted  the  principal  dogma 
of  faith  in  him  —  is  it  not  strange  that  Jesus  did  not 
speak  of  the  matter  at  least  once,  in  clear  and  pre- 
cise terms?  Now,  according  to  the  canonical  Gos- 
pels, he  not  only  did  not  speak  of  it  in  clear  and 
precise  terms  ;  he  did  not  speak  of  it  at  all,  not  once, 
not  a  single  word. 

i  Exod.  iii.  6. 


MY  RELIGION.  145 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus  consisted  in  the  elevation 
of  the  son  of  man,  that  is,  in  the  recognition  on 
the  part  of  man,  that  he,  man,  was  the  son  of  God. 
In  his  own  individuality  Jesus  personified  the  man 
who  has  recognized  the  filial  relation  with  God.  He 
asked  his  disciples  whom  men  said  that  he  was  — 
the  son  of  man?  His  disciples  replied  that  some 
took  him  for  John  the  Baptist,  and  some  for  Elijah. 
Then  came  the  question,  "  But  ichom  say  ye  that  1 
am?"  And  Peter  answered,  "  Thou  art  the  Messiah, 
the  son  of  the  living  God."  Jesus  responded, 
"  Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven;"  meaning  that  Peter 
understood,  not  through  faith  in  human  explana- 
tions, but  because,  feeling  himself  to  be  the  son  of 
God,  he  understood  that  Jesus  was  also  the  son 
of  God.  And  after  having  explained  to  Peter  that 
the  true  faith  is  founded  upon  the  perception  of  the 
filial  relation  to  God,  Jesus  charged  his  other  dis- 
ciples that  they  should  tell  no  man  that  he  was  the 
Messiah.  After  this,  Jesus  told  them  that  although 
he  might  suffer  many  things  and  be  put  to  death, 
he,  that  is  his  doctrine,  would  be  triumphantly 
re-established.  And  these  words  are  interpreted  as 
a  prophecy  of  the  resurrection  (Matt.  xvi.  13-21). 

Of  the  thirteen  passages1  which  are  interpreted 
as  prophecies  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  his  own  resur- 

1  John  xi.  19-22  ;  Matt.  xii.  40  ;  Luke  xi.  30 ;  Matt.  xvi.  21  ; 
Mark  viii.  31 ;  Luke  ix.  22  ;  Matt.  xvii.  23  ;  Mark  ix.  31 ;  Matt. 
xx.  19  ;  Mark  x.  34 ;  Luke  xviii.  33  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  32  :  Mark 
xiv.  26. 


146  MY  RELIGION. 

rection,  two  refer  to  Jonah  in  the  whale's  belly, 
another  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple.  The 
others  affirm  that  the  son  of  man  shall  not  be 
destroyed  ;  but  there  is  not  a  word  about  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  In  none  of  these  passages  is  the 
word  "resurrection"  found  in  the  original  text. 
Ask  any  one  who  is  ignorant  of  theological  inter- 
pretations, but  who  knows  Greek,  to  translate  them, 
and  he  will  never  agree  with  the  received  versions. 
In  the  original  we  find  two  different  words,  aviarrjfXL 
and  eyei/ow,  which  are  rendered  in  the  sense  of  resurrec- 
tion ;  one  of  these  words  means  to  "  re-establish  "  ; 
the  other  means  "to  awaken,  to  rise  up,  to  arouse 
one's  self."  But  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can 
ever,  in  any  case,  mean  to  "  resuscitate" — to  raise 
from  the  dead.  With  regard  to  these  Greek  words 
and  the  corresponding  Hebrew  word,  qu?n,  we  have 
only  to  examine  the  scriptural  passages  where 
these  words  are  employed,  as  they  are  very  fre- 
quently, to  see  that  in  no  case  is  the  meaning  "  to 
resuscitate"  admissible.  The  word  voskresnovit, 
auferstehn,  resusciter — "to  resuscitate"  —  did  not 
exist  in  the  Greek  or  Hebrew  tongues,  for  the 
reason  that  the  conception  corresponding  to  this 
word  did  not  exist.  To  express  the  idea  of  resur- 
rection in  Greek  or  in  Hebrew,  it  is  necessary  to 
employ  a  periphrasis,  meaning,  "is  arisen,  has 
awakened  among  the  dead."  Thus,  in  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew  (xiv.  2)  where  reference  is  made  to 
Herod's  belief  that  John  the  Baptist  had  been  re- 
suscitated, we   read,   avrbs   yy^pOr)   cbro  tCjv  vtKpw, 


MY  RELIGION.  147 

"has  awakened  among  the  dead."  In  the  same 
manner,  in  Luke  (xvi.  31),  at  the  close  of  the  par- 
able of  Lazarus,  where  it  said  that  if  men  believe 
not  the  prophets,  they  would  not  believe  even  though 
one  be  resuscitated,  we  find  the  periphrasis,  iav  ™? 
ck  vcKpto;  avaarr),  "if  one  arose  among  the  dead." 
But,  if  in  these  passages  the  words  "  among  the 
dead "  were  not  added  to  the  words  4 '  arose  or 
awakened,"  the  last  two  could  never  signify  resusci- 
tation. When  Jesus  spoke  of  himself,  he  did  not 
once  use  the  words  "among  the  dead"  in  any  of 
the  passages  quoted  in  support  of  the  affirmation 
that  Jesus  foretold  his  own  resurrection. 

Our  conception  of  the  resurrection  is  so  entirely 
foreign  to  any  idea  that  the  Hebrews  possessed  with 
regard  to  life,  that  we  cannot  even  imagine  how 
Jesus  would  have  been  able  to  talk  to  them  of  the 
resurrection,  and  of  an  eternal,  individual  life, 
which  should  be  the  lot  of  every  man.  The  idea 
of  a  future  eternal  life  comes  neither  from  Jewish 
doctrine  nor  from  the  doctrine  of  Jesus?  but  from 
an  entirely  different  source.  We  are  obliged  to 
believe  that  belief  in  a  future  life  is  a  primitive  and 
crude  conception  based  upon  a  confused  idea  of  the 
resemblance  between  death  and  sleep, — an  idea 
common  to  all  savage  races. 

The  Hebraic  doctrine  (and  much  more  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine)  was  far  above  this  conception.  But 
we  are  so  convinced  of  the  elevated  character  of  this 
superstition,  that  we  use  it  as  a  proof  of  the  superi- 
ority of  our  doctrine  to  that  of  the  Chinese  or  the 


148  MY  RELIGION. 

Hindus,  who  do  not  believe  in  it  at  all.  Not  the 
theologians  only,  but  the  free-thinkers,  the  learned 
historians  of  religions,  such  as  Tiele,  and  Max 
Miiller,  make  use  of  the  same  argument.  In  their 
classification  of  religions,  they  give  the  first  place 
to  those  which  recognize  the  superstition  of  the 
resurrection,  and  declare  them  to  be  far  superior  to 
those  not  professing  that  belief.  Schopenhauer 
boldly  denounced  the  Hebraic  religion  as  the  most 
despicable  of  all  religions  because  it  contains  not  a 
trace  of  this  belief.  Not  only  the  idea  itself,  but  all 
means  of  expressing  it,  were  wanting  to  the  Hebraic 
religion.  Eternal  life  is  in  Hebrew  chayai  olam.  By 
olam  is  meant  the  infinite,  that  which  is  permanent 
in  the  limits  of  time ;  olam  also  means  "  world"  or 
"  cosmos."  Universal  life,  and  much  more  chayai 
olam,  "eternal  life,"  is,  according  to  the  Jewish 
doctrine,  the  attribute  of  God  alone.  God  is  the 
God  of  life,  the  living  God.  Man,  according  to 
the  Hebraic  idea,  is  always  mortal.  God  alone  is 
always  living.  In  the  Pentateuch,  the  expression 
"eternal  life"  is  twice  met  with ;  once  in  Deuter- 
onomy and  once  in  Genesis.  God  is  represented  as 
saying :  — 

"  See  now  that  I,  even  I,  am  he, 
And  there  is  no  god  with  me : 
I  kill,  and  I  make  alive; 
I  have  wounded,  and  I  heal  : 
And  there  is  none  that  can  deliver  out  of  my 
hand. 


MY  RELIGION.  149 

For  I  lift  up  my  hayid  to  heaven, 
And  say,  As  I  live  forever." 

(Deut.  xxxii.  39,  40.) 

"  And  Jehovah  said,  Behold,  the  man  is  become  as 
one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil;  and  now,  lest  he 
put  forth  his  hand,  and  take  also  the  tree  of  life,  and 
live  forever."    (Gen.  iii.  22.) 

These  two  sole  instances  of  the  use  of  the  expres- 
sion "  eternal  life"  in  the  Old  Testament  (with  the 
exception  of  another  instance  in  the  apocryphal 
book  of  Daniel)  determine  clearly  the  Hebraic  con- 
ception of  the  life  of  man  and  the  life  eternal.  Life 
itself,  according  to  the  Hebrews,  is  eternal,  is  in 
God ;  but  man  is  always  mortal :  it  is  his  nature  to 
be  so.  According  to  the  Jewish  doctrine,  man  as 
man,  is  mortal.  Ke  nas  life  only  as  it  passes  from 
one  generation  to  another,  and  is  so  perpetuated  in 
a  race.  According  to  the  Jewish  doctrine,  the 
faculty  of  life  exists  in  the  people.  When  God  said, 
"Ye  may  live,  and  not  die,"  he  addressed  these 
words  to  the  people.  The  life  that  God  breathed 
into  man  is  mortal  for  each  separate  human  being  ; 
this  life  is  perpetuated  from  generation  to  generation, 
if  men  fulfil  the  union  with  God,  that  is,  obey  the 
conditions  imposed  bjT  God.  After  having  pro- 
pounded the  Law,  and  having  told  them  that  this 
Law  was  to  be  found  not  in  heaven,  but  in  their  own 
hearts,  Moses  saicl  to  the  people  :  — 

"  See,  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good, 
and  death  and  evil;  in  that  I  command  thee  this  day 


150  MY  RELIGION. 

to  love  the  Eternal,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  and  to  keep 
his  commandments,  that  thou  mayest  live.  .  .  .  I 
call  heaven  and  earth  to  witness  agairist  you  this 
day,  that  I  have  set  before  thee  life  and  death,  the 
blecsing  and  the  curse:  therefore  choose  life,  that  thou 
mayest  live,  thou  and  thy  seed :  to  love  the  Eternal, 
to  obey  his  voice,  and  to  cleave  unto  him :  for  he  is 
thy  life,  and  the  length  of  thy  days."  (Deut.  xxx. 
15-19.) 

The  principal  difference  between  our  conception 
of  human  life  and  that  possessed  by  the  Jews  is, 
that  while  we  believe  that  our  mortal  life,  transmitted 
from  generation  to  generation,  is  not  the  true  life, 
but  a  fallen  life,  a  life  temporarily  depraved,  —  the 
Jews,  on  the  contrary,  believed  this  life  to  be  the 
true  and  supreme  good,  given  to  man  on  condition 
that  he  obey  the  will  of  God.  From  our  point  of 
view,  the  transmission  of  the  fallen  life  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  is  the  transmission  of  a  curse  ; 
from  the  Jewish  point  of  view,  it  is  the  supreme  good 
to  which  man  can  attain,  on  condition  that  he  ac- 
complish the  will  of  God.  It  is  precisely  upon  the 
Hebraic  conception  of  life  that  Jesus  founded  his 
doctrine  of  the  true  or  eternal  life,  which  he  con- 
trasted with  the  personal  and  mortal  life.  Jesus 
said  to  the  Jews  :  — 

"  Search  the  Scriptures;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye 
have  eternal  life :  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of 
me."     (John  v.  39.) 

To  the  3'oung  man  who  asked  what  he  must  do  to 
have  eternal  life,  Jesus  said  in  reply,  "  If  thou  wilt 


MY  RELIGION.  151 

enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments."  He  did 
not  say  "the  eternal  life,"  but  simply  "the  life" 
(Matt.  xix.  17).  To  the  same  question  propounded 
by  the  scribe,  the  answer  was,  "  This  do,  and 
thou  slialt  live  "  (Luke  x.  28) ,  once  more  promising 
life,  but  saying  nothing  of  eternal  life.  From  these 
two  instances,  we  know  what  Jesus  meant  by  eternal 
life  ;  whenever  he  made  use  of  the  phrase  in  speak- 
ing to  the  Jews,  he  employed  it  in  exactly  the  same 
sense  in  which  it  was  expressed  in  their  own  law,  — 
the  accomplishment  of  the  will  of  God.  In  contrast 
with  the  life  that  is  temporary,  isolated,  and  per- 
sonal, Jesus  taught  of  the  eternal  life  promised  by 
God  to  Israel  —  with  this  difference,  that  while  the 
Jews  believed  the  eternal  life  was  to  be  perpetuated 
solely  b}r  their  chosen  people,  and  that  whoever 
wished  to  possess  this  life  must  follow  the  excep- 
tional laws  given  by  God  to  Israel,  —  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  holds  that  the  eternal  life  is  perpetuated  in 
the  son  of  man,  and  that  to  obtain  it  we  must  prac- 
tise the  commandments  of  Jesus,  who  summed  up 
the  will  of  God  for  all  humanity. 

As  opposed  to  the  personal  life,  Jesus  taught  us, 
not  of  a  life  beyond  the  grave,  but  of  that  universal 
life  which  comprises  within  itself  the  life  of  humanity, 
past,  present,  and  to  come.  According  to  the 
Jewish  doctrine,  the  personal  life  could  be  saved 
from  death  only  by  accomplishing  the  will  of  God  as 
propounded  in  the  Mosaic  law.  On  this  condition 
only  the  life  of  the  Jewish  race  would  not  perish, 
but  would  pass  from  generation  to  generation  of  the 


152  MY  RELIGION. 

chosen  people  of  God.  According  to  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  the  personal  life  is  saved  from  death  by 
the  accomplishment  of  the  will  of  God  as  propounded 
in  the  commandments  of  Jesus.  On  this  condition 
alone  the  personal  life  does  not  perish,  but  becomes 
eternal  and  immutable,  in  union  with  the  son  of  man. 
The  difference  is,  that  while  the  religion  given  by 
Moses  was  that  of  a  people  for  a  national  God,  the 
religion  of  Jesus  is  the  expression  of  the  aspirations 
of  all  humanity.  The  perpetuity  of  life  in  the  pos- 
terity of  a  people  is  doubtful,  because  the  people 
itself  may  disappear,  and  perpetuity  depends  upon 
a  posterity  in  the  flesh.  Perpetuity  of  life,  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  is  indubitable,  because 
life,  according  to  his  doctrine,  is  an  attribute  of  all 
humanity  in  the  son  of  man  who  lives  in  harmony 
with  the  will  of  God. 

If  we  believe  that  Jesus'  words  concerning  the  last 
judgment  and  the  consummation  of  the  age,  and 
other  words  reported  in  tine  Gospel  of  John,  are  a 
promise  of  a  life  beyond  the  grave  for  the  souls  of 
men,  —  if  we  believe  this,  it  is  none  the  less  true  that 
his  teachings  in  regard  to  the  light  of  life  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  have  the  same  meaning  for  us  that 
they  had  for  his  hearers  eighteen  centuries  ago  ;  that 
is,  that  the  only  real  life  is  the  life  of  the  son  of  man 
conformable  to  the  will  of  the  Giver  of  Life.  It  is 
easier  to  admit  this  than  to  admit  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  true  life,  conformable  to  the  will  of  the  Giver 
of  Life,  contains  the  promise  of  the  immortality  of 
life  beyond  the  grave. 


my  religion:  153 

Perhaps  it  is  right  to  think  that  man,  after  this 
terrestrial  life  passed  in  the  satisfaction  of  personal 
desires,  will  enter  upon  the  possession  of  an  eternal 
personal  life  in  paradise,  there  to  taste  all  imagina- 
ble enjoyments  ;  but  to  believe  that  this  is  so,  to 
endeavor  to  persuade  ourselves  that  for  our  good 
actions  we  shall  be  recompensed  with  eternal  felicity, 
and  for  our  bad  actions  punished  with  eternal  tor- 
ments, — to  believe  this,  does  not  aid  us  in  under- 
standing the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
takes  away  the  principal  foundation  of  that  doc- 
trine. The  entire  doctrine  of  Jesus  inculcates 
renunciation  of  the  personal,  imaginary  life,  and  a 
merging  of  this  personal  life  in  the  universal  life  of 
humanity,  in  the  life  of  the  son  of  man.  Now  the 
doctrine  of  the  individual  immortality  of  the  soul 
does  not  impel  us  to  renounce  the  personal  life  ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  affirms  the  continuance  of  individu- 
ality forever. 

The  Jews,  the  Chinese,  the  Hindus,  all  men  who 
do  not  believe  in  the  dogma  of  the  fall  and  the 
redemption,  conceive  of  life  as  it  is.  A  man  lives, 
is  united  with  a  woman,  engenders  children,  cares 
for  them,  grows  old,  and  dies.  His  life  continues 
in  his  children,  and  so  passes  on  from  one  genera- 
tion to  another,  like  everything  else  in  the  world,  — 
stones,  metals,  earth,  plants,  animals,  stars.  Life 
is  life,  and  we  must  make  the  best  of  it. 

To  live  for  self  alone,  for  the  animal  life,  is  not 
reasonable.  And  so  men,  from  their  earliest  exist- 
ence, have  sought  for  some  reason  for  living  aside 


154  MY  RELIGION. 

from  the  gratification  of  their  own  desires  ;  they  live 
for  their  children,  for  their  families,  for  their  nation, 
for  humanity,  for  all  that  does  not  die  with  the  per- 
sonal life. 

But  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
human  life,  the  supreme  good  that  we  possess,  is 
but  a  very  small  portion  of  another  life  of  which  we 
are  deprived  for  a  season.  Our  life  is  not  the  life 
that  God  intended  to  give  us  or  such  as  is  our  due. 
Our  life  is  degenerate  and  fallen,  a  mere  fragment, 
a  mockery,  compared  with  the  real  life  to  which  we 
think  ourselves  entitled.  The  principal  object  of 
life  is  not  to  try  to  live  this  mortal  life  conformably 
to  the  will  of  the  Giver  of  Life  ;  or  to  render  it  eter- 
nal in  the  generations,  as  the  Hebrews  believed ;  or 
to  identify  ourselves  with  the  will  of  God,  as  Jesus 
taught ;  no,  it  is  to  believe  that  after  this  unreal  life 
the  true  life  will  begin. 

Jesus  did  not  speak  of  the  imaginary  life  that  we 
believe  to  be  our  due,  and  that  God«.did  not  give  to 
us  for  some  unexplained  reason.  The  theory  of  the 
fall  of  Adam,  of  eternal  life  in  paradise,  of  an 
immortal  soul  breathed  by  God  into  Adam,  was 
unknown  to  Jesus ;  he  never  spoke  of  it,  never 
made  the  slightest  allusion  to  its  existence.  Jesus 
spoke  of  life  as  it  is,  as  it  must  be  for  all  men  ;  we 
speak  of  an  imaginary  life  that  has  never  existed. 
How,  then,  can  we  understand  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  ? 

Jesus  did  not  anticipate  such  a  singular  change  of 
view  in  his  disciples.     He  supposed  that  all   men 


MY  RELIGION.  155 

understood  that  the  destruction  of  the  personal  life 
is  inevitable,  and  he  revealed  to  them  an  imperisha- 
ble life.  He  offers  true  peace  to  them  that  suffer ; 
but  to  those  who  believe  that  they  are  certain  to 
possess  more  than  Jesus  gives,  his  doctrine  can  be 
of  no  value.  How  shall  I  persuade  a  man  to  toil  in 
return  for  food  and  clothing  if  this  man  is  persuaded 
that  he  already  possesses  great  riches?  Evidently 
he  will  pay  no  attention  to  my  exhortations.  So  it 
is  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  Why 
should  I  toil  for  bread  when  1  can  be  rich  without 
labor?  Why  should  I  trouble  myself  to  live  this  life 
according  to  the  will  of  God  when  I  am  sure  of  a 
personal  life  for  all  eternity  ? 

That  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity,  as  God  made  manifest  in  the  flesh,  was  the 
salvation  of  men ;  that  he  took  upon  himself  the 
penalty  for  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  sins  of  all  men  ; 
that  he  atoned  to  the  first  person  of  the  Trinity  for 
the  sins  of  humanity  ;  that  he  instituted  the  Church 
and  the  sacraments  for  our  salvation  —  believing 
this,  the  Church  says,  we  are  saved,  and  shall  pos- 
sess a  personal,  immortal  life  beyond  the  grave.  But 
meanwhile  we  cannot  deny  that  Jesus  saved  and 
still  saves  men  by  revealing  to  them  their  inevitable 
loss,  showing  them  that  he  is  the  way,  the  truth, 
and  the  life,  the  true  way  to  life  instead  of  the  false 
way  to  the  personal  life  that  men  had  heretofore 
followed. 

If  there  are  any  who  doubt  the  life  beyond  the 
grave  and  salvation  based  upon  redemption,  no  one 


156  MY  RELIGION'. 

can  doubt  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  of  each 
individual  man,  if  they  will  accept  the  evidence  of 
the  destruction  of  the  personal  life,  and  follow  the 
true  way  to  safety  by  bringing  their  personal  wills 
into  harmony  with  the  will  of  God.  Let  each  man 
endowed  with  reason  ask  himself,  What  is  life?  and 
What  is  death?  and  let  him  try  to  give  to  life  and 
death  any  other  meaning  than  that  revealed  by 
Jesus,  and  he  will  find  that  any  attempt  to  find  in 
life  a  meaning  not  based  upon  the  renunciation  of 
self,  the  service  of  humanity,  of  the  son  of  man,  is 
utterly  futile.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  per- 
sonal life  is  condemned  to  destruction,  and  that  a  life 
conformable  to  the  will  of  God  alone  gives  the  possi- 
bility of  salvation.  It  is  not  much  in  comparison 
with  the  sublime  belief  in  the  future  life  !  It  is  not 
much,  but  it  is  sure. 

I  am  lost  with  hi}'  companions  in  a  snow-storm. 
One  of  them  assures  me  with  the  utmost  sincerity 
that  he  sees  a  light  in  the  distance,  but  it  is  onry  a 
mirage  which  deceives  us  both ;  we  strive  to  reach 
this  light,  but  we  never  can  find  it.  Another  reso- 
lutely brushes  away  the  snow ;  he  seeks  and  finds  the 
road,  and  he  cries  to  us,  "Go  not  that  way,  the 
light  you  see  is  false,  you  will  wander  to  destruc- 
tion ;  here  is  the  road,  I  feel  it  beneath  my  feet;  we 
are  saved."  It  is  very  little,  we  say.  We  had  faith 
in  that  light  that  gleamed  in  our  deluded  eyes,  that 
told  us  of  a  refuge,  a  warm  shelter,  rest,  deliver- 
ance,—  and  now  in  exchange  for  it  we  have  nothing 
but  the  road.     Ah,  but  if  we  continue   to  travel 


my  religion:  157 

toward  the  imaginary  light,  we  shall  perish ;  if  we 
follow  the  road,  we  shall  surely  arrive  at  a  haven  of 
safety. 

What,  then,  must  I  do  if  I  alone  understand  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  and  I  alone  have  trust  in  it  among 
a  people  who  neither  understand  it  nor  obey  it? 
What  ought  I  to  do  — to  live  like  the  rest  of  the  world, 
or  to  live  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus?  I 
understood  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  expressed  in  his 
commandments,  and  I  believed  that  the  practice  of 
these  commandments  would  bring  happiness  to  me 
and  to  all  men.  I  understood  that  the  fulfilment  of 
these  commandments  is  the  will  of  God,  the  source 
of  life.  More  than  this,  I  saw  that  I  should  die  like 
a  brute  after  a  farcical  existence  if  I  did  not  fulfil  the 
will  of  God,  and  that  the  only  chance  of  salvation 
lay  in  the  fulfilment  of  His  will.  In  following  the 
example  of  the  world  about  me,  I  should  unques- 
tionably act  contrary  to  the  welfare  of  all  men,  and, 
above  all,  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Giver  of  Life  ; 
I  should  surely  forfeit  the  sole  possibilit}-  of  better- 
ing my  desperate  condition.  In  following  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus,  I  should  continue  the  work  common 
to  all  men  who  had  lived  before  me  ;  I  should  con- 
tribute to  the  welfare  of  my  fellows,  and  of  those 
who  were  to  live  after  me ;  I  should  obey  the  com- 
mand of  the  Giver  of  Life  ;  I  should  seize  upon  the 
only  hope  of  salvation. 

The  circus  at  Berditchef 1  is  in  flames.  A  crowd 
of  people  are  struggling  before  the  only  place  of 

1  A  city  in  Russia  become  famous  by  a  recent  catastrophe. 


158  MY  RELIGION. 

exit,  —  a  door  that  opens  inward.  Suddenly,  in  the 
midst  of  the  crowd,  a  voice  rings  out:  "  Back, 
stand  back  from  the  door ;  the  closer  you  press 
against  it,  the  less  the  chance  of  escape ;  stand 
back ;  that  is  your  only  chance  of  safety ! " 
Whether  I  am  alone  in  understanding  this  com- 
mand, or  whether  others  with  me  also  hear  and 
understand,  I  have  but  one  duty,  and  that  is,  from 
the  moment  I  have  heard  and  understood,  to  fall 
back  from  the  door  and  to  call  upon  every  one  to 
obey  the  voice  of  the  saviour.  I  may  be  suffocated, 
I  may  be  crushed  beneath  the  feet  of  the  multitude, 
I  may  perish ;  my  sole  chance  of  safety  is  to  do  the 
one  thing  necessary  to  gain  an  exit.  And  I  can  do 
nothing  else.  A  saviour  should  be  a  saviour,  that 
is,  one  who  saves.  And  the  salvation  of  Jesus  is 
the  true  salvation.  He  came,  he  preached  his  doc- 
trine, and  humanity  is  saved. 

The  circus  may  burn  in  an  hour,  and  those 
penned  up  in  it  may  have  no  time  to  escape.  But 
the  world  has  been  burning  for  eighteen  hundred 
years  ;  it  has  burned  ever  since  Jesus  said,  "  I  am 
come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth;"  and  I  suffer  as  it 
burns,  and  it  will  continue  to  burn  until  humanity 
is  saved.  Was  not  this  fire  kindled  that  men  might 
have  the  felicity  of  salvation?  Understanding  this, 
I  understood  and  believed  that  Jesus  is  not  only 
the  Messiah,  that  is,  the  Anointed  One,  the  Christ, 
but  that  he  is  in  truth  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  I 
know  that  he  is  the  only  way,  that  there  is  no  other 
way  for  me  or  for  those  who  are  tormented  with  me 


MY  RELIGION.  159 

in  this  life.  I  know,  that  for  me  as  for  all,  there  is 
no  other  safety  than  the  fulfilment  of  the  com- 
mandments of  Jesns,  who  gave  to  all  humanity  the 
greatest  conceivable  sunTof  benefits. 

Would  there  be  great  trials  to  endure  ?  Should  I 
die  in  following  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  ?  This  ques- 
tion did  not  alarm  me.  It  might  seem  frightful  to 
any  one  who  does  not  realize  the  nothingness  and 
absurdit\T  of  an  isolated  personal  life,  and  who  be- 
lieves that  he  will  never  die.  But  I  know  that  my 
life,  considered  in  relation  to  my  individual  happi- 
ness, is,  taken  by  itself,  a  stupendous  farce,  and 
that  this  meaningless  existence  will  end  in  a  stupid 
death.  Knowing  this,  I  have  nothing  to  fear.  I 
shall  die  as  others  die  who  do  not  observe  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus ;  but  my  life  and  my  death  will  have 
a  meaning  for  myself  and  for  others.  M3'  life  and 
my  death  will  have  added  something  to  the  life  and 
salvation  of  others,  and  this  will  be  in  accordance 
with  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

LET  all  the  world  practise  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
and  the  reign  of  God  will  come  upon  earth ;  if 
I  alone  practise  it,  I  shall  do  what  I  can  to  better 
rny  own  condition  and  the  condition  of  those  about 
me.  There  is  no  salvation  aside  from  the  fulfilment 
of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  But  who  will  give  me  the 
strength  to  practise  it,  to  follow  it  without  ceasing, 
and  never  to  fail?  "  Lord,  I  believe;  help  thou  mine 
unbelief."  The  disciples  called  upon  Jesus  to 
strengthen  their  faith.  "  Wlien  I  ivould  do  good," 
says  the  apostle  Paul,  "  evil  is  present  with  me."  It 
is, hard  to  work  out  one's  salvation. 

A  drowning  man  calls  for  aid.  A  rope  is  thrown 
to  him,  and  he  says:  "Strengthen  my  belief  that 
this  rope  will  save  me.  I  believe  that  the  rope  will 
save  me  ;  but  help  my  unbelief."  What  is  the  mean- 
ing of  this  ?  If  a  man  will  not  seize  upon  his  only 
means  of  safety,  it  is  plain  that  he  does  not  under- 
stand his  condition. 

How  can  a  Christian  who  professes  to  believe  in 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  and  of  his  doctrine,  whatever 
may  be  the  meaning  that  he  attaches  thereto,  say 
that  he  wishes  to  believe,  and  that  he  cannot  believe  ? 
God  comes  upon  earth,  and  says,  "Fire,  torments, 
eternal  darkness  await  you  ;  and  here  is  your  salva- 


'MY  RELIGION.  161 

tion  —  fulfil  my  doctrine."  It  is  not  possible  that 
a  believing  Christian  should  not  believe  and  profit  by 
the  salvation  thus  offered  to  him ;  it  is  not  possible 
that  he  should  say,  "  Help  my  unbelief."  If  a  man 
says  this,  he  not  only  does  not  believe  in  his  perdi- 
tion, but  he  must  be  certain  that  he  shall  not  perish. 

A  number  of  children  have  fallen  from  a  boat  into 
the  water.  For  an  instant  their  clothes  and  their 
feeble  struggles  keep  them  on  the  surface  of  the 
stream,  and  they  do  not  realize  their  danger. .  Those 
in  the  boat  throw  out  a  rope.  They  warn  the  chil- 
dren against  their  peril,  and  urge  them  to  grasp  the 
rope  (the  parables  of  the  woman  and  the  piece  of 
silver,  the  shepherd  and  the  lost  sheep,  the  marriage 
feast,  the  prodigal  son,  all  have  this  meaning), 
but  the  children  do  not  believe ;  they  refuse  to 
believe,  not  in  the  rope,  but  that  they  are  in  danger 
of  drowning.  Children  as  frivolous  as  themselves 
have  assured  them  that  they  can  continue  to  float 
gaily  along  even  when  the  boat  is  far  away.  The 
children  do  not  believe  ;  but  when  their  clothes  are 
saturated,  the  strength  of  their  little  arms  exhausted, 
they  will  sink  and  perish.  This  they  do  not  believe, 
and  so  they  do  not  believe  in  the  rope  of  safety. 

Just  as  the  children  in  the  water  will  not  grasp 
the  rope  that  is  thrown  to  them,  persuaded  that  they 
will  not  perish,  so  men  who  believe  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  soul,  convinced  that  there  is  no  danger, 
do  not  practise  the  commandments  of  Jesus.  The}' 
do  not  believe  in  what  is  certain,  simply  because 
they  do  believe  in  what  is  uncertain.     It  is  for  this 


162  MY  RELIGION. 

cause  they  cry,  "  Lord,  strengthen  our  faith,  lest  we 
perish."  But  this  is  impossible.  To  have  the  faith 
that  will  save  them  from  perishing,  the}*  must  cease 
to  do  what  will  lead  them  to  perdition,  and  they 
must  begin  to  do  something  for  their  own  safety ; 
they  must  grasp  the  rope  of  safety.  Now  this  is 
exactly  what  they  do  not  wish  to  do ;  they  wish  to 
persuade  themselves  that  the}*  will  not  perish,  al- 
though they  see  their  comrades  perishing  one  after 
another  before  their  very  eyes.  They  wish  to  per- 
suade themselves  of  the  truth  of  what  does  not 
exist,  and  so  they  ask  to  be  strengthened  in  faith. 
It  is  plain  that  they  have  not  enough  faith,  and  they 
wish  for  more. 

When  I  understood  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  I  saw 
that  what  these  men  call  faith  is  the  faith  denounced 
by  the  apostle  James  : l  — 

"  What  doth  it  profit,  my  brethren,  if  a  man  be- 
lieve he  hath  faith,  but  hath  not  works  f  can  that  faith 
save  him?  If  a  brother  or  sister  be  naked  and  in 
lack  of  daily  food,  and  one  of  you  say  unto  them, 
Go  in  peace,  be  ye  warmed  and  filled;  and  yet  ye 
give  them  not  the  things  needful  to  the  body;  what 
doth  it  profit?  Even  so  faith,  if  it  have  not  works, 
is  dead  in  itself.  But  some  one  will  say,  Thou  hast 
faith,  and  I  have  icorks :  Shew  me  thy  faith  which  is 
without  works,  and  I,  by  my  works,  will  show  thee  my 

1  The  epistle  of  James  was  for  a  long  time  rejected  by  the 
Church,  and  when  accepted,  was  subjected  to  various  altera- 
tions: certain  words  are  omitted,  others  are  transposed,  or 
translated  in  an  arbitrary  way.  I  have  restored  the  defective 
passages  after  the  text  authorized  by  Tischendorf. 


my  religion:  163 

faith.  Thou  believest  there  is  one  God;  thou  doest 
well:  the  demons  also  believe,  and  tremble.  But 
ivilt  thou  know,  0  vain  man,  that  faith  without  works 
is  dead?  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified  by 
works  when  he  offered  up  Isaac  his  son  upon  the 
altar?  Thou  seest  that  faith  wrought  with  his  works, 
and  by  works  was  faith  made  perfect.  ...  Ye  see  that 
by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  7iot  only  by  faith. 
.  .  .  For  as  the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,  so 
faith  is  dead  without  ivorks."     (James  ii.  14-26.) 

James  says  that  the  indication  of  faith  is  the  acts 
that  it  inspires,  and  consequently  that  a  faith  which 
does  not  result  in  acts  is  of  words  merely,  with  which 
one  cannot  feed  the  hungry,  or  justify  belief,  or 
obtain  salvation.  A  faith  without  acts  is  not  faith. 
It  is  only  a  disposition  to  believe  in  something,  a 
vain  affirmation  of  belief  in  something  in  which  one 
does  not  really  believe.  Faith,  as  the  apostle  James 
defines  it,  is  the  motive  power  of  actions,  and 
actions  are  a  manifestation  of  faith. 

The  Jews  said  to  Jesns :  "  What  signs  shewest 
thou  then,  that  we  may  see,  and  believe  thee?  what 
dost  thou  ivork  ?"  (John  vi.  30.  See  also  Mark 
xv.  32;  Matt,  xxvii.  42).  Jesus  told  them  that 
their  desire  was  vain,  and  that  they  could  not  be 
made  to  believe  what  they  did  not  believe.  "  If  1 
tell  you"  he  said,  "ye  will  not  believe"  (Luke 
xxii.  67)  ;  "  I  told  you,  and  ye  believed  not.  .  .  . 
But  ye  believe  not  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep  " 
(Johnx.  25,  26). 

The  Jews  asked  exactly  what  is  asked  by  Chris- 


164  N  MY  RELIGION. 

tians  brought  up  in  the  Church ;  they  asked  for 
some  outward  sign  which  should  make  them  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  Jesus  explained  that  this 
was  impossible,  and  he  told  them  wiry  it  was  impos- 
sible. He  told  them  that  they  could  not  believe 
because  they  were  not  of  his  sheep  ;  that  is,  they  did 
not  follow  the  road  he  had  pointed  out.  He  ex- 
plained why- some  believed,  and  why  others  did  not 
believe,  and  he  told  them  what  faith  really  was. 
He  said:  "How  can  ye  believe  which  receive  your 
doctrine  (So'^a1)  one  of  another,  and  seek  not  the  doc- 
trine that  cometh  only  from  God?"  (John  v.  44). 

To  believe,  Jesus  says,  we  must  seek  for  the  doc- 
trine that  comes  from  God  alone. 

u  He  that  speaketh  of  himself  seeketh  (to  extend) 
his  own  doctrine,  86£av  ttjv  IScav,  but  he  that  seeketh 
(to  extend)  the  doctrine  of  him  that  sent  him,  the 
same  is  true,  and  no  untruth  is  in  him."  (John  vii. 
18.) 

The  doctrine  of  life,  So£a,  is  the  foundation  of 
faith,  and  actions  result  spontaneously  from  faith. 
But  there  are  two  doctrines  of  life :  Jesus  denies 
the  one  and  affirms  the  other.  One  of  these  doc- 
trines, a  source  of  all  error,  consists  of  the  idea  that 
the  personal  life  is  one  of  the  essential  and  real 
attributes  of  man.  This  doctrine  has  been  followed, 
and  is  still  followed,  by  the  majority  of  men  ;  it  is 
the  source  of  divergent  beliefs  and  acts.     The  other 

1  Here,  as  in  other  passages,  5J|a  has  heen  incorrectly  trans- 
lated "honor  ";  86£a}  from  the  verh  8ok4w,  means  "  manner  of 
seeing,  judgment,  doctrine.'* 


MY  RELIGION.  105 

doctrine,  taught  by  Jesus  and  by  all  the  prophets, 
affirms  that  our  personal  life  has  no  meaning  save 
through  fulfilment  of  the  will  of  God.  If  a  man 
confess  a  doctrine  that  emphasizes  his  own  personal 
life,  he  will  consider  that  his  personal  welfare  is  the 
most  important  thing  in  the  world,  and  he  will  con- 
sider riches,  honors,  glory,  pleasure,  as  true  sources 
of  happiness  ;  he  will  have  a  faith  in  accordance 
with  his  inclination,  and  his  acts  will  always  be  in 
harmony  with  his  faith.  If  a  man  confess  a  differ- 
ent doctrine,  if  he  find  the  essence  of  life  in  fulfil- 
ment of  the  will  of  God  in  accordance  with  the 
example  of  Abraham  and  the  teaching  and  example 
of  Jesus,  his  faith  will  accord  with  his  principles, 
and  his  acts  will  be  conformable  to  his  faith.  >  And 
so  those  who  believe  that  true  happiness  is  to  be 
found  in  the  personal  life  can  never  have  faith  in 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  All  their  efforts  to  fix  their 
faith  upon  it  will  be  always  vain.  To  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  they  must  look  at  life  in  an  en- 
tirely different  way.  Their  actions  will  coincide 
always  with  their  faith  and  not  with  their  intentions 
and  their  words. 

In  men  who  demand  of  Jesus  that  he  shall  work 
miracles  we  may  recognize  a  desire  to  believe  in  his 
doctrine  ;  but  this  desire  never  can  be  realized  in  life, 
however  arduous  the  efforts  to  obtain  it.  In  vain 
they  pray,  and  observe  the  sacraments,  and  give  in 
charity,  and  build  churches,  and  convert  others  ;  they 
cannot  follow  the  example  of  Jesus  because  their 
acts  are  inspired  by  a  faith  based  upon  an  entirely 


166  MY  RELIGION. 

different  doctrine  from  that  which  they  confess. 
They  could  not  sacrifice  an  only  son  as  Abraham 
was  ready  to  do,  although  Abraham  had  no  hesita- 
tion whatever  as  to  what  he  should  do,  just  as  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  were  moved  to  give  their  lives  for 
others,  because  such  action  alone  constituted  for 
them  the  true  meaning  of  life.  This  incapacity  to 
understand  the  substance  of  faith  explains  the  strauge 
moral  state  of  men,  who,  acknowledging  that  they 
ought  to  live  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
endeavor  to  live  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  con- 
formably to  their  belief  that  the  personal  life  is  a 
sovereign  good. 

The  basis  of  faith  is  the  meaning  that  we  derive 
from  life,  the  meaning  that  determines  whether  we 
look  upon  life  as  important  and  good,  or  trivial  and 
corrupt.  Faith  is  the  appreciation  of  good  and  of 
evil.  Men  with  a  faith  based  upon  their  own  doc- 
trines do  not  succeed  at  all  in  harmonizing  this  faith 
with  the  faith  inspired  by  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  ;  and 
so  it  was  with  the  early  disciples.  This  misappre- 
hension is  frequently  referred  to  in  the  Gospels  in 
clear  and  decisive  terms.  Several  times  the  disciples 
asked  Jesus  to  strengthen  their  faith  in  his  words 
(Matt.  xx.  20-28  ;  Mark  x.  35-43).  After  the  mes- 
sage, so  terrible  to  every  man  who  believes  in  the 
personal  life  and  who  seeks  his  happiness  in  the 
riches  of  this  world,  after  the  words,  "How  hardly 
shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  and  after  words  still  more  terrible  for  men 
who  believe  only  in  the  personal  life,  "  Sell  whatso- 


MY  RELIGION.  167 

ever  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor; "  after  these 
warning  words  Peter  asked,  "Behold,  zve  hare  for- 
saken  all  and  followed  thee;  ivhat  shall  we  have  there- 
fore f  "  Then  James  and  John  and,  according  to  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  their  mother,  asked  him  that  they 
might  be  allowed  to  sit  with  him  in  glory.  They 
asked  Jesus  to  strengthen  their  faith  with  a  promise 
of  future  recompense.  To  Peter's  question  Jesus 
replied  with  a  parable  (Matt.  xx.  1-16);  to  James 
he  replied  that  they  did  not  know  what  they  asked  ; 
that  they  asked  what  was  impossible  ;  that  they  did 
not  understand  the  doctrine,  which  meant  a  renun- 
ciation of  the  personal  life,  while  they  demanded 
personal  glory,  a  personal  recompense  ;  that  they 
should  drink  the  cup  he  drank  of  (that  is,  live  as  he 
lived),  but  to  sit  upon  his  right  hand  and  upon  his 
left  was  not  his  to  give.  And  Jesus  added  that  the 
great  of  this  world  had  their  profit  and  enjoyment 
of  glory  and  personal  power  only  in  the  worldly  life  ; 
but  that  his  disciples  ought  to  know  that  the  true 
meaning  of  human  life  is  not  in  personal  happi- 
ness, but  in  ministering  to  others  ;  "  the  son  of  man 
came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and 
to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  ma,ny."  In  reply  to  the 
unreasonable  demands  which  revealed  their  slowness 
to  understand  his  doctrine,  Jesus  did  not  command 
his  disciples  to  have  faith  in  his  doctrine,  that  is,  to 
modify  the  ideas  inspired  by  their  own  doctrine  (he 
knew  that  to  be  impossible),  but  he  explained  to 
them  the  meaning  of  that  life  which  is  the  basis  of 
true  faith,  that  is,  taught  them  how  to  discern  good 
from  evil,  the  important  from  the  secondary. 


1G8  MY  RELIGION. 

To  Peter's  question,  "  What  shall  we  receive?" 
Jesus  replies  with  the  parable  of  the  laborers  in  the 
vineyard  (Matt.  xx.  1-16) ,  beginning  with  the  words 
"  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  man  that 
is  a  householder ,"  and  by  this  means  Jesus  explains 
to  Peter  that  failure  to  understand  the  doctrine  is 
the  cause  of  lack  of  faith  ;  and  that  remuneration  in 
proportion  to  the  amount  of  work  done  is  important 
only  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  personal  life. 

This  faith  is  based  upon  the  presumption  of  certain 
imaginary  rights  ;  but  a  man  has  a  right  to  nothing ; 
he  is  under  obligations  for  the  good  he  has  received, 
and  so  he  can  exact  nothing.  Even  if  he  were  to 
give  up  his  whole  life  to  the  service  of  others,  he 
could  not  pay  the  debt  he  has  incurred,  and  so  he 
cannot  complain  of  injustice.  If  a  man  sets  a  value 
upon  his  rights  to  life,  if  he  keeps  a  reckoning  with 
the  Overruling  Power  from  whom  he  has  received 
life,  he  proves  simply  that  he  does  not  understand 
the  meaning  of  life.  Men  who  have  received  a 
benefit  act  far  otherwise.  The  laborers  employed  in 
the  vineyard  were  found  by  the  householder  idle  and 
unhappy ;  the}'  did  not  possess  life  in  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  term.  And  then  the  householder 
gave  them  the  supreme  welfare  of  life,  — work.  They 
accepted  the  benefits  offered,  and  were  discontented 
because  their  remuneration  was  not  graduated  accord- 
ing to  their  imaginary  deserts.  They  did  the  work, 
believing  in  their  false  doctrine  of  life  and  work  as  a 
right,  and  consequently  with  an  idea  of  the  remunera- 
tion to  which  they  were  entitled.     They  did  not  un- 


MY  RELIGION-.  169 

derstand  that  work  is  the  supreme  good,  and  that 
the}'  should  be  thankful  for  the  opportunity  to  work, 
instead  of  exacting  payment.  And  so  all  men  who 
look  upon  life  as  these  laborers  looked  upon  it,  never 
can  possess  true  faith.  This  parable  of  the  laborers, 
related  by  Jesus  in  response  to  the  request  by  his 
disciples  that  he  strengthen  their  faith,  shows  more 
clearly  than  ever  the  basis  of  the  faith  that  Jesus 
taught. 

When  Jesus  told  his  disciples  that  they  must  for- 
give a  brother  who  trespassed  against  them  not  only 
once,  but  seventy  times  seven  times,  the  disciples 
were  overwhelmed  at  the  difficulty  of  observing  this 
injunction,  and  said,  "  Increase  our  faith,"  just  as  a 
little  while  before  they  had  asked,  "Wliat  shall  we 
receive?"  Now  they  uttered  the  language  of  would- 
be  Christians:  "We  wish  to  believe,  but  cannot; 
strengthen  our  faith  that  we  may  be  saved ;  make  us 
believe  "  (as  the  Jews  said  to  Jesus  when  they  de- 
manded miracles)  ;  "  either  by  miracles  or  promises 
of  recompense,  make  us  to  have  faith  in  our  sal- 
vation." 

The  disciples  said  what  we  all  say :  "How  pleasant 
it  would  be  if  we  could  live  our  selfish  life,  and  at 
the  same  time  believe  that  it  is  far  better  to  practise 
the  doctrine  of  God  by  living  for  others."  This  dis- 
position of  mind  is  common  to  us  all;  it  is  contrary 
to  the  meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  and  yet  we 
are  astonished  at  our  lack  of  faith.  Jesus  disposed 
of  this  misapprehension  by  means  of  a  parable  illus- 
trating true  faith.     Faith  cannot  come  of  confidence 


170  MY  RELIGION. 

in  his  words  ;  faith  can  come  only  of  a  consciousness 
of  our  condition  ;  faith  is  based  only  upon  the  dic- 
tates of  reason  as  to  what  is  best  to  do  in  a  given 
situation.  He  showed  that  this  faith  cannot  be 
awakened  in  others  by  promises  of  recompense  or 
threats  of  punishment,  which  can  only  arouse  a  feeble 
confidence  that  will  fail  at  the  first  trial ;  bat  that  the 
faith  which  removes  mountains,  the  faith  that  noth- 
ing can  shatter,  is'  inspired  by  the  consciousness  of 
our  inevitable  loss  if  we  do  not  profit  by  the  salvation 
that  is  offered. 

To  have  faith,  we  must  not  count  on  an}r  promise 
of  recompense ;  we  must  understand  that  the  only 
way  of  escape  from  a  ruined  life  is  a  life  conform- 
able to  the  will  of  the  Master.  He  who  understands 
this  will  not  ask  to  be  strengthened  in  his  faith,  but 
will  work  out  his  salvation  without  the  need  of  any 
exhortation.  The  householder,  when  he  comes 
from  the  fields  with  his  workman,  does  not  ask  the 
latter  to  sit  down  at  once  to  dinner,  but  directs  him 
to  attend  first  to  other  duties  and  to  wait  upon  him, 
the  master,  and  then  to  take  his  place  at  the  table 
and  dine.  This  the  workman  does  without  any 
sense  of  being  wronged ;  he  does  not  boast  of  his 
labor  nor  does  he  demand  recognition  or  recom- 
pense, for  he  knows  that  labor  is  the  inevitable  con- 
dition of  his  existence  and  the  true  welfare  of  his 
life.  So  Jesus  says  that  when  we  have  done  all 
that  we  are  commanded  to  do,  we  have  only  fulfilled 
our  duty.  He  who  understands  his  relations  to  his 
master  will  understand  that  he  has  life  only  as  he 


MY  RELIGION.  171 

obeys  the  master's  will ;  he  will  know  in  what  his 
welfare  consists,  and  he  will  have  a  faith  that  does 
not  demand  the  impossible.  This  is  the  faith 
taught  by  Jesus,  which  has  for  its  foundation  a 
thorough  perception  of  the  true  meaning  of  life. 
The  source  of  faith  is  light :  — 

"  That  was  the  true  light  which  lighteth  every  man 
that  cometh  into  the  world.  He  was  in  the  world, 
and  the  world  was  made  by  him,  and  the  world  knew 
him  not.  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received 
him  not.  But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave 
he  the  right  to  become  the  children  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  name."     (John  i.  9-12.) 

"  And  this  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come 
into  the  world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than 
light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil.  For  every  one 
that  doeth  ill  hateth  the  light,  and  cometh  not  to  the 
light,  lest  his  icorks  should  be  reproved.  But  he  that 
doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  icorks  may 
be  made  manifest,  because  they  have  been  wrought  in 
God."     (John  iii.  19-21.) 

He  who  understands  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  will 
not  ask  to  be  strengthened  in  his  faith.  The  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  teaches  that  faith  is  inspired  by  the 
light  of  truth.  Jesus  never  asked  men  to  have  faith 
in  his  person  ;  he  called  upon  them  to  have  faith  in 
truth.     To  the  Jews  he  said  :  — 

"  Ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the 
truth  ivhich  I  have  heard  of  God."     (John  viii   40.) 

"  Wliich  of  you  convicteth  me  of  sin?  If  I  say 
truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe  me?"     (John  viii.  46.) 


172  MY  RELIGION. 

"  To  this  end  have  I  been  born,  and  to  this  end  am 
I  come  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto 
the  truth.  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my 
voice."     (John  xviii.  37.) 

To  his  disciples  he  said  :  — 

"I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life." 
(John  xiv.  6.) 

4 '  The  Father  .  .  .  shall  give  you  another  Comforter, 
that  he  may  be  with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth:  whom  the  world  cannot  receive;  for  it  behold- 
eth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him:  ye  know  him;  for 
he  abideth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you."  (John 
xiv.  16,  17.) 

Jesus'  doctrine,  then,  is  truth,  and  he  himself  is 
truth.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  the  doctrine  of 
truth.  Faith  in  Jesus  is  not  belief  in  a  system 
based  upon  his  personality,  but  a  consciousness  of 
truth.  No  one  can  be  persuaded  to  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  nor  can  any  one  be  stimulated  by 
any  promised  reward  to  practise  it.  He  who  under- 
stands the  doctrine  of  Jesus  will  have  faith  in  him, 
because  this  doctrine  is  true.  He  who  knows  the 
truth  indispensable  to  his  happiness  must  believe  in 
it,  just  as  a  man  who  knows  that  he  is  drowning 
grasps  the  rope  of  safety.  Thus,  the  question, 
What  must  I  do  to  believe  ?  is  an  indication  that  he 
who  asks  it  does  not  understand  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus. 


CHAPTER  X. 

WE  say,  It  is  difficult  to  live  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  !  And  why  should  it  not 
be  difficult,  when  by  our  organization  of  life  we 
carefully  hide  from  ourselves  our  true  situation ; 
when  we  endeavor  to  persuade  ourselves  that  our 
situation  is  not  at  all  what  it  is,  but  that  it  is  some- 
thing else?  We  call  this  faith,  and  regarding  it  as 
sacred,  we  endeavor  by  all  possible  means,  by 
threats,  by  flattery,  by  falsehood,  by  stimulating 
the  emotions,  to  attract  men  to  its  support.  In  this 
mad  determination  to  believe  what  is  contrary  to 
sense  and  reason,  we  reach  such  a  degree  of  aber- 
ration that  we  are  ready  to  take  as  an  indication  of 
truth  the  very  absurdity  of  the  object  in  whose 
behalf  we  solicit  the  confidence  of  men.  Are  there 
not  Christians  who  are  ready  to  declare  with  enthu- 
siasm "  Credo  quia  absurdum,"  supposing  that  the 
absurd  is  the  best  medium  for  teaching  men  the 
truth?  Not  long  ago  a  man  of  intelligence  and 
great  learning  said  to  me  that  the  Christian  doctrine 
had  no  importance  as  a  moral  rule  of  life.  Moral- 
ity, he  said,  must  be  sought  in  the  teachings  of  the 
Stoics  and  the  Brahmins,  and  in  the  Talmud.  The 
essence  of  the  Christian  doctrine  is  not  in  morality, 


174  MY  RELIGION. 

he  said,  but  in  the  theosophical  doctrine  propounded 
in  its  dogmas.  According  to  this  I  ought  to  prize 
iu  the  Christian  doctrine  not  what  it  contains  of 
eternal  good  to  humanity,  not  its  teachings  indis- 
pensable to  a  reasonable  life ;  I  ought  to  regard  as 
the  most  important  element  of  Christianity  that 
portion  of  it  which  it  is  impossible  to  understand, 
and  therefore  useless,  —  and  this  in  the  name  of 
the  faith  for  which  thousands  of  men  have  perished. 

AVe  have  a  false  conception  of  life,  a  conception 
based  upon  wrong  doing  and  inspired  by  selfish 
passions,  and  we  consider  our  faith  in  this  false  con- 
ception (which  we  have  in  some  way  attached  to  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus) ,  as  the  most  important  and  neces- 
sary thing  with  which  we  are  concerned.  If  men 
had  not  for  centuries  maintained  faith  in  what  is 
untrue,  this  false  conception  of  life,  as  well  as  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  would  long  ago  have 
been  revealed. 

It  is  a  terrible  thing  to  say,  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  if  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  and  that  of  the  Church 
which  has  been  foisted  upon  it,  had  never  existed, 
those  who  to-day  call  themselves  Christians  would 
be  much  nearer  than  they  are  to  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  ;  that  is,  to  the  reasonable  doc- 
trine which  teaches  the  true  meaning  of  life.  The 
moral  doctrines  of  all  the  prophets  of  the  world 
would  not  then  be  closed  to  them.  They  would 
have  their  little  ideas  of  truth,  and  would  regard 
them  with  confidence.  Now,  all  truth  is  revealed, 
and  this  truth  has  so  horrified  those  whose  manner 


MY  RELIGION.  175 

of  life  it  condemned,  that  they  have  disguised  it  in 
falsehood,  and  men  have  lost  confidence  in  the  truth. 

In  our  European  society,  the  words  of  Jesus, 
"  To  this  end  I  am  come  into  the  ivorld,  that  I  shall 
bear  witness  unto  the  truth.  Every  one  that  is  of  the 
truth  heareth  my  voice  "  —  have  been  for  a  long  time 
supplanted  by  Pilate's  question,  "  What  is  truth?" 
This  question,  quoted  as  a  bitter  and  profound 
irony  against  a  Roman,  we  have  taken  as  of  serious 
purport,  and  have  made  of  it  an  article  of  faith. 

With  us,  all  men  live  not  only  without  truth,  not 
only  without  the  least  desire  to  know  truth,  but  with 
the  firm  conviction  that,  among  all  useless  occupa- 
tions, the  most  useless  is  the  endeavor  to  find  the  truth 
that  governs  human  life.  The  rule  of  life,  the  doc- 
trine that  all  peoples,  excepting  our  European  socie- 
ties, have  always  considered  as  the  most  important 
tiling,  the  rule  of  which  Jesus  spoke  as  the  one  thing 
needful,  is  an  object  of  universal  disdain.  An  insti- 
tution called  the  Church,  in  which  no  one,  not  even 
if  he  belong  to  it,  really  believes,  has  for  a  long 
time  usurped  the  place  of  this  rule. 

The  only  source  of  light  for  those  who  think  and 
suffer  is  hidden.  For  a  solution  of  the  questions, 
What  ami?  what  ought  I  to  do  ?  I  am  not  allowed 
to  depend  upon  the  doctrine  of  him  who  came  to 
save  ;  I  am  told  to  obey  the  authorities,  and  believe 
in  the  Church.  But  why  is  life  so  full  of  evil? 
Why  so  much  wrong-doing?  May  I  not  abstain 
from  taking  part  therein?  Is  it  impossible  to  lighten 
this  heavy  load  that  weighs  me  down?     The  reply 


176  MY  RELIGION. 

is  that  this  is  impossible,  that  the  desire  to  live  well 
and  to  help  others  to  live  well  is  only  a  temptation 
of  pride  ;  that  one  thing  is  possible,  —  to  save  one's 
soul  for  the  future  life.  He  who  is  not  willing  to 
take  part  in  this  miserable  life  ma}-  keep  aloof  from 
it ;  this  way  is  open  to  all ;  but,  says  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  he  who  chooses  this  way  can  take  no 
part  in  the  life  of  the  world  ;  he  ceases  to  live.  Our 
masters  tell  us  that  there  are  only  two  ways,  —  to 
believe  in  and  obey  the  powers  that  be,  to  partici- 
pate in  the  organized  evil  about  us,  or  to  forsake  the 
world  and  take  refuge  in  convent  or  monastery ;  to 
take  part  in  the  offices  of  the  Church,  doing  nothing 
for  men,  and  declaring  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  impossi- 
ble to  practise,  accepting  the  iniquity  of  life  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Church,  or  to  renounce  life  for  what  is 
equivalent  to  slow  suicide. 

However  surprising  the  belief  that  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  is  excellent,  but  impossible  of  practice,  there 
is  a  still  more  surprising  tradition  that  he  who  wishes 
to  practise  this  doctrine,  not  in  word,  but  in  deed, 
must  retire  from  the  world.  This  erroneous  belief 
that  it  is  better  for  a  man  to  retire  from  the  world 
than  to  expose  himself  to  temptations,  existed 
amongst  the  Hebrews  of  old,  but  is  entirely  foreign, 
not  only  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  but  to  that  of 
the  Jewish  religion.  The  charming  and  significant 
story  of  the  prophet  Jonah,  which  Jesus  so  loved  to 
quote,  was  written  in  regard  to  this  very  error.  The 
prophet  Jonah,  wishing  to  remain  upright  and  virtu- 
ous, retires  from  the  perverse  companionship  of  men. 


MY  RELIGION.  177 

But  God  shows  him  that  as  a  prophet  he  ought  to 
communicate  to  misguided  men  a  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  and  so  ought  not  to  fly  from  men,  but  ought 
rather  to  live  in  communion  with  them.  Jonah,  dis- 
gusted with  the  depravity  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Nineveh,  flies  from  the  city ;  but  he  cannot  escape 
his  vocation.  He  is  brought  back,  and  the  will  of 
God  is  accomplished  ;  the  Ninevites  receive  the  words 
of  Jonah  and  are  saved.  Instead  of  rejoicing  that 
he  has  been  made  the  instrument  of  God's  will,  Jonah 
is  angry,  and  condemns  God  for  the  mercy  shown 
the  Ninevites,  arrogating  to  himself  alone  the  exer- 
cise of  reason  and  goodness.  He  goes  out  into  the 
desert  and  makes  him  a  shelter,  whence  he  addresses 
his  reproaches  to  God.  Then  a  gourd  comes  up  over 
Jonah  and  protects  him  from  the  sun,  but  the  next 
day  it  withers.  Jonah,  smitten  by  the  heat,  re- 
proaches God  anew  for  allowing  the  gourd  to 
wither.     Then  God  says  to  him  :  — 

"  Thou  hast  had  pity  on  the  gourd,  for  the  which 
thou  hast  not  labored,  neither  madest  it  grow ;  which 
came  up  in  a  night,  and  perished  in  a  night:  and 
should  I  not  have  pity  on  Nineveh,  that  great  city ; 
wherein  are  more  than  six  score  thousand  persons  that 
cannot  discern  between  their  right  hand  and  their  left 
hand?" 

Jesus  knew  this  story,  and  often  referred  to  it. 
In  the  Gospels  we  find  it  related  how  Jesus,  after 
the  interview  with  John,  who  had  retired  into  the 
desert,  was  himself  subjected  to  the  same  tempta- 
tion before  beginning  his  mission.     He  was  led  by 


178  MY  RELIGION. 

the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness,  and  there  tempted 
by  the  Devil  (error),  over  which  he  triumphed 
and  returned  to  Galilee.  Thereafter  he  mingled 
with  the  most  depraved  men,  and  passed  his  life 
among  publicans,  Pharisees,  and  fishermen,  teach- 
ing them  the  truth.1 

Even  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
Jesus,  as  God  in  man,  has  given  us  the  example  of 
his  life.  All  of  his  life  that  is  known  to  us  was 
passed  in  the  company  of  publicans,  of  the  down- 
fallen,  and  of  Pharisees.  The  principal  command- 
ments of  Jesus  are  that  his  followers  shall  love 
others  and  spread  his  doctrine.  Both  exact  con- 
stant communion  with  the  world.  And  yet  the 
deduction  is  made  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  per- 
mits retirement  from  the  world.  That  is,  to  imitate 
Jesus  we  may  do  exactly  contrary  to  what  he  taught 
and  did  himself. 

As  the  Church  explains  it,  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
offers  itself  to  men  of  the  world  and  to  dwellers  in 

1  Jesus  is  led  into  the  desert  to  be  tempted  of  error.  Error 
suggests  to  Jesus  that  he  is  not  the  Son  of  God  if  he  cannot  make 
stones  into  bread.  Jesus  replies  that  he  lives,  not  by  bread 
alone,  but  by  the  word  of  God.  Then  Error  says  that  if  he  lives 
by  the  word  or  spirit  of  God,  the  flesh  maybe  destroyed,  but  the 
spirit  will  not  perish.  Jesus'  reply  is  that  life  in  the  flesh  is  the 
will  of  God ;  to  destroy  the  flesh  is  to  act  contrary  to  the  will  of 
God,  to  tempt  God.  Error  then  suggests  that  if  this  be  true,  he 
should,  like  the  rest  of  the  world,  place  himself  at  the  service  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  flesh  will  give  him  satisfaction.  Jesus'  reply 
is  that  he  can  serve  God  only  because  the  true  life  is  spiritual, 
and  has  been  placed  in  the  flesh  by  the  will  of  God.  Jesus  then 
leaves  the  desert  and  returns  to  the  world.  (Matt.  iv.  1-11; 
Luke  iv.  1-13.) 


MY  RELIGION.  179 

monasteries,  not  as  a  rule  of  life  for  bettering  one's 
own  condition  and  the  condition  of  others,  but  as  a 
doctrine  which  teaches  the  man  of  the  world  how  to 
live  an  evil  life  and  at  the  same  time  gain  for  him- 
self another  life,  and  the  monk  how  to  render  exist- 
ence still  more  difficult  than  it  naturally  is.  But 
Jesus  did  not  teach  this.  Jesus  taught  the  truth, 
and  if  metaphysical  truth  is  the  truth,  it  will  remain 
such  in  practice.  If  life  in  God  is  the  only  true 
life,  and  is  in  itself  profitable,  then  it  is  so  here  in 
this  world  in  spite  of  all  that  may  happen.  If  in 
this  world  a  life  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  is  not  profitable,  his  doctrine  cannot  be  true. 

Jesus  did  not  ask  us  to  pass  from  better  to  worse, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  from  worse  to  better.  He 
had  pity  upon  men,  who  to  him  were  like  sheep 
without  a  shepherd.  He  said  that  his  disciples 
would  be  persecuted  for  his  doctrine,  and  that  they 
must  bear  the  persecutions  of  the  world  with  resolu- 
tion. But  he  did  not  say  that  those  who  followed 
his  doctrine  would  suffer  more  than  those  who  fol- 
lowed the  world's  doctrine  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  said 
that  those  who  followed  the  world's  doctrine  would 
be  wretched,  and  that  those  who  followed  his  doc- 
trine would  havre  joy  and  peace.  Jesus  did  not 
teach  salvation  by  faith  in  asceticism  or  voluntary 
torture,  but  he  taught  us  a  way  of  life  which,  while 
saving  us  from  the  emptiness  of  the  personal  life, 
would  give  us  less  of  suffering  and  more  of  joy. 
Jesus  told  men  that  in  practising  his  doctrine  among 
unbelievers  they  would  be,  not  more  unhappy,  but, 


180  MY  RELIGION. 

on  the  contrary,  much  more  happy,  than  those  who 
did  not  practise  it.  There  was,  he  said,  one  infalli- 
ble rule,  and  that  was  to  have  no  care  about  the 
worldly  life.  When  Peter  said  to  Jesus,  "  We  have 
forsaken  all,  and  followed  thee;  what  then  shall  we 
have  ?  "  Jesus  replied  :  — 

"  There  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  brethren, 
or  sisters,  or  mother,  or  father,  or  children,  or  lands, 
for  my  sake,  and  for  the  gospel's  sake,  but  he  shall 
receive  a  hundredfold  more  in  this  time,  houses,  and 
brethren,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  a?id  children,  and 
lands,  with  persecutions ;  and  in  the  age  to  come  eter- 
nal life.,y     (Mark  x.  28-30.) 

Jesus  declared,  it  is  true,  that  those  who  follow 
his  doctrine  must  expect  to  be  persecuted  by  those 
who  do  not  follow  it,  but  he  did  not  say  that  his 
disciples  will  be  the  worse  off  for  that  reason  ;  on 
the  contrary,  he  said  that  his  disciples  would  have, 
here,  in  this  world,  more  benefits  than  those  who 
did  not  follow  him.  That  Jesus  said  and  thought 
this  is  beyond  a  doubt,  as  the  clearness  of  his 
words  on  this  subject,  the  meaning  of  his  entire 
doctrine,  his  life  and  the  life  of  his  disciples, 
plainly  show.  But  was  his  teaching  in  this  respect 
true? 

When  we  examine  the  question  as  to  which  of 
the  two  conditions  would  be-  the  better,  that  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  or  that  of  the  disciples  of  the 
world,  we  are  obliged  to  conclude  that  the  condition 
of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  ought  to  be  the  most 
desirable,    since   the   disciples   of  Jesus,  in  doing 


MY  RELIGION.  181 

good  to  every  one,  would  not  arouse  the  hatred  of 
men.  The  disciples  of  Jesus,  doing  evil  to  no  one, 
would  be  persecuted  only  by  the  wicked.  The  dis- 
ciples of  the  world,  on  the  contrary,  are  likely  to  be 
persecuted  by  every  one,  since  the  law  of  the  disci- 
ples of  the  world  is  the  law  of  each  for  himself,  the 
law  of  struggle ;  that  is,  of  mutual  persecution. 
Moreover,  the  disciples  of  Jesus  would  be  prepared 
for  suffering,  while  the  disciples  of  the  world  use  all 
possible  means  to  avoid  suffering ;  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  would  feel  that  their  sufferings  were  useful 
to  the  world  ;  but  the  disciples  of  the  world  do  not 
know  why  they  suffer.  On  abstract  grounds,  then, 
the  condition  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  would  be 
more  advantageous  than  that  of  the  disciples  of  the 
world.  '  But  is  it  so  in  reality?  To  answer  this, 
let  each  one  call  to  mind  all  the  painful  moments  of 
his  life,  all  the  physical  and  moral  sufferings  that 
he  has  endured,  and  let  him  ask  himself  if  he  has 
suffered  these  calamities  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  world  or  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 
Ever3r  sincere  man  will  find  in  recalling  his  past  life 
that  he  has  never  once  suffered  for  practising  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus.  He  will  find  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  misfortunes  of  ,his  life  have  resulted 
from  following  the  doctrines  of  the  world.  In  my 
own  life  (an  exceptionally  happy  one  from  a  worldly 
point  of  view)  I  can  reckon  up  as  much  suffering 
caused  by  following  the  doctrine  of  the  world  as 
many  a  martyr  has  endured  for  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus.     All  the  most  painful  moments  of  my  life, — 


182  my  religion; 

the  orgies  and  duels  in  which  I  took  part  as  a 
student,  the  wars  in  which  I  have  participated,  the 
diseases  that  I  have  endured,  and  the  abnormal  and 
insupportable  conditions  under  which  I  now  live, — 
all  these  are  only  so  much  martyrdom  exacted  by 
fidelity  to  the  doctrine  of  the  world.  But  I  speak 
of  a  life  exceptionally  happy  from  a  worldly  point 
of  view.  How  many  martyrs  have  suffered  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  world  torments  that  I  should  find 
difficulty  in  enumerating ! 

We  do  not  realize  the  difficulties  and  dangers 
entailed  by  the  practice  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
world,  simply  because  we  are  persuaded  that  we 
could  not  do  otherwise  than  follow  that  doctrine. 
We  are  persuaded  that  all  the  calamities  that  we 
inflict  upon  ourselves  are  the  result  of  the  inevitable 
conditions  of  life,  and  we  cannot  understand  that 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  teaches  us  how  we  may  rid 
ourselves  of  these  calamities  and  render  our  lives 
happy.  To  be  able  to  reply  to  the  question,  Which 
of  these  two  conditions  is  the  happier?  we  must, 
at  least  for  the  time  being,  put  aside  our  prejudices 
and  take  a  careful  survey  of  our  surroundings. 

Go  through  our  great  cities  and  observe  the 
emaciated,  sickly,  and4  distorted  specimens  of  hu- 
manity to  be  found  therein  ;  recall  your  own  exist- 
ence and  that  of  all  the  people  with  whose  lives  you 
are  familiar ;  recall  the  instances  of  violent  deaths 
and  suicides  of  which  you  have  heard,  — and  then 
ask  yourself  for  what  cause  all  this  suffering  and 
death,  this  despair  that  leads  to  suicide,  has  been 


my  religion:  183 

■endured.  You  will  find,  perhaps  to  your  surprise, 
mat  nine-tenths  of  all  human  suffering  endured  by 
men  is  useless,  and  ought  not  to  exist,  that,  in  fact, 
the  majority  of  men  are  martyrs  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  world. 

One  rainy  autumn  day  I  rode  on  the  tramway  by 
the  Sukhareff  Tower  in  Moscow.  For  the  distance 
of  half  a  verst  the  vehicle  forced  its  way  through 
a  compact  crowd  which  quickly  reformed  its  ranks. 
From  morning  till  night  these  thousands  of  men, 
the  greater  portion  of  them  starving  and  in  rags, 
tramped  angrily  through  the  mud,  venting  their 
hatred  in  abusive  epithets  and  acts  of  violence. 
The  same  sight  may  be  seen  in  all  the  market- 
places of  Moscow.  At  sunset  these  people  go  to 
the  taverns  and  gaming-houses ;  their  nights  are 
passed  in  filth  and  wretchedness.  Think  of  the 
lives  of  these  people,  of  what  they  abandon  through 
choice  for  their  present  condition ;  think  of  the 
heavy  burden  of  labor  without  reward  which  weighs 
upon  these  men  and  women,  and  you  will  see  that 
the}'  are  true  martyrs.  All  these  people  have  for- 
saken houses,  lands,  parents,  wives,  and  children  ; 
they  have  renounced  all  the  comforts  of  life,  and 
they  have  come  to  the  cities  to  acquire  that  which 
according  to  the  gospel  of  the  world  is  indispensa- 
ble to  every  one.  And  all  these  tens  of  thousands 
of  unhappy  people  sleep  in  hovels,  and  subsist  upon 
strong  drink  and  wretched  food.  But  aside  from 
this  class,  all,  from  factory  workman,  cab-driver, 
sewing  girl,  and  lorette,  to  merchant  and  government 


184  my  religion: 

official,  all  endure  the  most  painful  and  abnormal 
conditions  without  being  able  to  acquire  what,  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  the  world,  is  indispensa- 
ble to  each. 

Seek  among  all  these  men,  from  beggar  to  mil- 
lionaire, one  who  is  contented  with  his  lot,  and  you 
will  not  find  one  such  in  a  thousand.  Each  one 
spends  his  strength  in  pursuit  of  what  is  exacted  b}' 
the  doctrine  of  the  world,  and  of  what  he  is  un- 
happy not  to  possess,  and  scarcely  has  he  obtained 
one  object  of  his  desires  when  he  strives  for 
another,  and  still  another,  in  that  infinite  labor  of 
Sisyphus  which  destroys  the  lives  of  men.  Run 
over  the  scale  of  individual  fortunes,  ranging  from 
a  yearly  income  of  three  hundred  roubles  to  fifty 
thousand  roubles,  and  you  will  rarely  find  a  person 
who  is  not  striving  to  gain  four  hundred  roubles  if 
he  have  three  hundred,  five  hundred  if  he  have 
four  hundred,  and  so  on  to  the  top  of  the  ladder. 
Among  them  all  you  will  scarcely  find  one  who, 
with  five  hundred  roubles,  is  willing  to  adopt  the 
mode  of  life  of  him  who  has  only  four  hundred. 
When  such  an  instance  does  occur,  it  is  not  inspired 
by  a  desire  to  make  life  more  simple,  but  to  amass 
money  and  make  it  more  sure.  Each  strives  con- 
tinually to  make  the  heavy  burden  of  existence  still 
more  heavy,  by  giving  himself  up  body  and  soul  to 
the  practice  of  the  doctrine  of  the  world.  To-day 
we  must  buy  an  overcoat  and  galoches,  to-morrow, 
a  watch  and  chain ;  the  next  day  we  must  install 
ourselves  in  an  appartment  with  a  sofa  and  a  bronze 


MY  RELIGION.  185 

lamp  ;  then  we  must  have  carpets  and  velvet  gowns  ; 
then  a  house,  horses  and  carriages,  paintings  and 
decorations,  and  then  —  then  we  fall  ill  of  overwork 
and  die.  Another  continues  the  same  task,  sacri- 
fices his  life  to  this  same  Moloch,  and  then  dies 
also,  without  realizing  for  what  he  has  lived. 

But  possibly  this  existence  is  in  itself  attractive  ? 
Compare  it  with  what  men  have  always  called  hap- 
piness, and  you  will  see  that  it  is  hideous.  For 
what,  according  to  the  general  estimate,  are  the 
principal  conditions  of  earthly  happiness?  One  of 
the  first  conditions  of  happiness  is  that  the  link 
between  man  and  nature  shall  not  be  severed,  that 
is,  that  he  shall  be  able  to  see  the  sky  above  him, 
and  that  he  shall  be  able  to  enjoy  the  sunshine,  the 
pure  air,  the  fields  with  their  verdure,  their  multitu- 
dinous life.  Men  have  always  regarded  it  as  a 
great  unhappiness  to  be  deprived  of  all  these 
things.  But  what  is  the  condition  of  those  men 
who  live  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  world? 
The  greater  their  success  in  practising  the  doctrine 
of  the  world,  the  more  they  are  deprived  of  these 
conditions  of  happiness.  The  greater  their  worldly 
success,  the  less  they  are  able  to  enjoy  the  light  of 
the  sun,  the  freshness  of  the  fields  and  woods,  and 
all  the  delights  of  country  life.  Many  of  them  — 
including  nearly  all  the  women  —  arrive  at  old  age 
without  having  seen  the  sun  rise  or  the  beauties  of 
the  early  morning,  without  having  seen  a  forest 
except  from  a  seat  in  a  carriage,  without  ever 
having   planted   a   field  or  a  garden,  and  without 


186  MY  RELIGION. 

having  the  least  idea  as  to  the  ways  and  habits  of 
dumb  animals. 

These  people,  surrounded  by  artificial  light  in- 
stead of  sunshine,  look  only  upon  fabrics  of  tapes- 
try and  stone  and  wood  fashioned  by  the  hand  of 
man ;  the  roar  of  machinery,  the  roll  of  vehicles, 
the  thunder  of  cannon,  the  sound  of  musical  instru- 
ments, are  always  in  their  ears ;  they  breathe  an 
atmosphere  heavy  with  distilled  perfumes  and 
tobacco  smoke ;  because  of-  the  weakness  of  their 
stomachs  and  their  depraved  tastes  they  eat  rich 
and  highly  spiced  food.  When  they  move  about 
from  place  to  place,  they  travel  in  closed  carriages. 
When  they  go  into  the  country,  they  have  the  same 
fabrics  beneath  their  feet ;  the  same  draperies  shut 
out  the  sunshine  ;  and  the  same  array  of  servants 
cut  off  all  communication  with  the  men,  the  earth, 
the  vegetation,  and  the  animals  about  them. 
Wherever  they  go,  they  are  like  so  many  captives 
shut  out  from  the  conditions  of  happiness.  As 
prisoners  sometimes  console  themselves  with  a 
blade  of  grass  that  forces  its  way  through  the 
pavement  of  their  prison  yard,  or  make  pets  of  a 
spider  or  a  mouse,  so  these  people  sometimes  amuse 
themselves  with  sickly  plants,  a  parrot,  a  poodle,  or 
a  monkey,  to  whose  needs  however  they  do  not 
themselves  administer. 

Another  inevitable  condition  of  happiness  is 
work  :  first,  the  intellectual  labor  that  one  is  free  to 
choose  and  loves  ;  secondly,  the  exercise  of  physical 
power  that  brings  a  good  appetite  and  tranquil  and 


MY  RELIGION-.  187 

profound  sleep.  Here,  again,  the  greater  the  imag- 
ined prosperity  that  falls  to  the  lot  of  men  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  the  world,  the  more  such 
men  are  deprived  of  this  condition  of  happiness. 
All  the  prosperous  people  of  the  world,  the  men  of 
dignit}T  and  wealth,  are  as  completely  deprived  of 
the  advantages  of  work  as  if  they  were  shut  up  in 
solitary  confinement.  They  struggle  unsuccessfully 
with  the  diseases  caused  by  the  need  of  physical 
exercise,  and  with  the  ennui  which  pursues  them  — 
unsuccessfully,  because  labor  is  a  pleasure  only 
when  it  is  necessary,  and  they  have  need  of  noth- 
ing ;  or  they  undertake  work  that  is  odious  to 
them,  like  the  bankers,  solicitors,  administrators, 
and  government  officials,  and  their  wives,  who  plan 
receptions  and  routs  and  devise  toilettes  for  them- 
selves and  their  children.  (I  say  odious,  because  I 
never  yet  met  any  person  of  this  class  who  was 
contented  with  his  work  or  took  as  much  satis- 
faction in  it  as  the  porter  feels  in  shovelling  away 
the  snow  from  before  their  doorsteps.)  All  these 
favorites  of  fortune  are  either  deprived  of  work  or 
are  obliged  to  work  at  what  they  do  liot  like,  after 
the  manner  of  criminals  condemned  to  hard  labor. 

The  third  undoubted  condition  of  happiness  is 
the  family.  But  the  more  men  are  enslaved  by 
worldly  success,  the  more  certainly  are  they  cut  off 
from  domestic  pleasures.  The  majority  of  them 
are  libertines,  who  deliberately  renounce  the  joys  of 
family  life  and  retain  only  its  cares.  If  they  are 
not  libertines,  their   children,    instead   of   being  a 


188  MY  RELIGION. 

source  of  pleasure,  are  a  burden,  and  all  possible 
means  are  employed  to  render  marriage  unfruitful. 
If  they  have  children,  they  make  no  effort  to  culti- 
vate the  pleasures  of  companionship  with  them. 
They  leave  their  children  almost  continually  to  the 
care  of  strangers,  confiding  them  first  to  the  in- 
struction of  persons  who  are  usually  foreigners, 
and  then  sending  them  to  public  educational  institu- 
tions, so  that  of  family  life  they  have  only  the 
sorrows,  and  the  children  from  infancy  are  as 
unhappy  as  their  parents  and  wish  their  parents 
dead  that  they  ma}'  become  the  heirs.1  These  peo- 
ple are  not  confined  in  prisons,  but  the  consequences 
of  their  way  of  living  with  regard  to  the  family  are 
more  melancholy  than  the  deprivation  from  the 
domestic  relations  inflicted  upon  those  who  are  kept 
in  confinement  under  sentence  of  the  law. 

The  fourth  condition  of  happiness  is  sympathetic 
and  unrestricted  intercourse  with  all  classes  of 
men.     And  the  higher  a  man  is  placed  in  the  social 

i  The  justification  of  this  existence  made  by  parents  is  very 
curious.  "I  need  nothing  for  myself,"  the  father  says;  "this 
way  of  living  is  very  distasteful  to  me ;  but,  because  of  affection 
for  my  children,  I  endure  its  burdens."  In  plain  terms  his 
argument  would  be:  "I  know  by  experience  that  my  way  of 
living  is  a  source  of  unhappiness,  consequently  I  am  training 
my  children  to  the  same  unhappy  method  of  existence.  For 
love  of  them,  I  bring  them  into  a  city  permeated  with  physical 
and  moral  miasma;  I  give  them  into  the  care  of  strangers,  who 
regard  the  education  of  the  young  as  a  lucrative  enterprise;  I 
surround  my  children  with  physical,  moral,  and  intellectual  cor- 
ruption." And  this  reasoning  must  serve  as  a  justification  of 
the  absurd  existence  led  by  the  parents  themselves. 


MY  BELIGIOK.  189 

scale,  the  more  certainly  is  he  deprived  of  this 
essential  condition  of  happiness.  The  higher  he 
goes,  the  narrower  becomes  his  circle  of  -associates  ; 
the  lower  sinks  the  moral  and  intellectual  level  of 
those  to  whose  companionship  he  is  restrained. 

The  peasant  and  his  wife  are  free  to  enter  into 
friendly  relations  with  every  one,  and  if  a  million 
men  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  them,  there  re- 
main eighty  millions  of  people  with  whom  they  may 
fraternize,  from  Archangel  to  Astrakhan,  without 
waiting  for  a  ceremonious  visit  or  an  introduction. 
A  clerk  and  his  wife  will  find  hundreds  of  people 
who  are  their  equals  ;  but  the  clerks  of  a  higher 
rank  will  not  admit  them  to  a  footing  of  social 
equality,  and  they,  in  their  turn,  are  excluded  by 
others.  The  wealthy  man  of  the  world  reckons  by 
dozens  the  families  with  whom  he  is  willing  to 
maintain  social  ties  —  all  the  rest  of  the  world  are 
strangers.  For  the  cabinet  minister  and  the  mil- 
lionaire there  are  only  a  dozen  people  as  rich  and 
as  important  as  themselves.  For  kings  and  em- 
perors, the  circle  is  still  more  narrow.  Is  not  the 
whole  system  like  a  great  prison  where  each  inmate 
is  restricted  to  association  with  a  few  fellow-con- 
victs ? 

Finally,  the  fifth  condition  of  happiness  is  bodily 
health.  And  once  more  we  find  that  as  we  ascend 
the  social  scale  this  condition  of  happiness  is  less 
and  less  within  the  reach  of  the  followers  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  world.  Compare  a  family  of 
medium   social  status  with   a  family  of   peasants. 


190  my  religion: 

The  latter  toil  unremittingly  and  are  robust  of 
body ;  the  former  is  made  up  of  men  and  women 
more  or  less  subject  to  disease.  Recall  to  mind  the 
rich  men  and  women  whom  you  have  known ;  are 
not  most  of  them  invalids  ?  A  person  of  that  class 
whose  physical  disabilities  do  not  oblige  him  to  take 
a  periodical  course  of  hygienic  and  medical  treat- 
ment is  as  rare  as  is  an  invalid  among  the  laboring 
classes.  All  these  favorites  of  fortune  are  the 
victims  and  practitioners  of  sexual  vices  that  have 
become  a  second  nature,  and  they  are  toothless, 
gray,  and  bald  at  an  age  when  a  workingman  is  in 
the  prime  of  manhood.  Nearly  all  are  afflicted 
with  nervous  or  other  diseases  arising  from  excesses 
in  eating,  drunkenness,  luxury,  and  perpetual  medi- 
cation. Those  who  do  not  die  young,  pass  half  of 
their  lives  under  the  influence  of  morphine  or  other 
drugs,  as  melancholy  wrecks  of  humanity  incapable 
of  self-attention,  leading  a  parasitic  existence  like 
that  of  a  certain  species  of  ants  which  are  nourished 
by  their  slaves.  Here  is  the  death  list.  One  has 
blown  out  his  brains,  another  has  rotted  away  from 
the  effects  of  syphilitic  poison ;  this  old  man  suc- 
cumbed to  sexual  excesses,  this  young  man  to  a 
wild  outburst  of  sensuality ;  one  died  of  drunken- 
ness, another  of  gluttony,  another  from  the  abuse  of 
morphine,  another  from  an  induced  abortion.  One 
after  another  they  perished,  victims  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  world.  And  a  multitude  presses  on  behind 
them,  like  an  army  of  martyrs,  to  undergo  the 
same  sufferings,  the  same  perdition. 


MY  RELIGION.  191 

To  follow  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  difficult ! 
Jesus  said  that  they  who  would  forsake  houses,  and 
lands,  and  brethren,  and  follow  his  doctrine  should 
receive  a  hundred-fold  in  houses,  and  lands,  and 
brethren,  and  besides  all  this,  eternal  life.  And 
no  one  is  willing  even  to  make  the  experiment. 
The  doctrine  of  the  world  commands  its  followers 
to  leave  houses,  and  lands,  and  brethren  ;  to  forsake 
the  country  for  the  filth  of  the  city,  there  to  toil  as 
a  bath-keeper  soaping  the  backs  of  others ;  as  an 
apprentice  in  a  little  underground  shop  passing  life 
in  counting  kopecks ;  as  a  prosecuting  attorney  to 
serve  in  bringing  unhappy  wretches  under  condem- 
nation of  the  law  ;  as  a  cabinet  minister,  perpetu- 
ally signing  documents  of  no  importance  ;  as  the 
head  of  an  army,  killing  men.  —  "  Forsake  all  and 
live  this  hideous  life  ending  in  a  cruel  death,  and 
you  shall  receive  nothing  in  this  world  or  the  other," 
is  the  command,  and  every  one  listens  and  obeys. 
Jesus  tells  us  to  take  up  the  cross  and  follow  him, 
to  bear  submissively  the  lot  apportioned  out  to  us. 
No  one  hears  his  words  or  follows  his  command. 
But  let  a  man  in  a  uniform  decked  out  with  gold 
lace,  a  man  whose  speciality  is  to  kill  his  fellows, 
say,  "Take,  not  your  cross,  but  your  knapsack 
and  carbine,  and  march  to  suffering*  and  certain 
death,"  — and  a  mighty  host  is  ready  to  receive  his 
orders.  Leaving  parents,  wives,  and  children,  clad 
in  grotesque  costumes,  subject  to  the  will  of  the 
first  comer  of  a  higher  rank,  famished,  benumbed, 
find  exhausted  by  forced  marches,  they  go,  like  a 


192  MY  RELIGION. 

herd  of  cattle  to  the  slaughter-house,  not  knowing 
where,  —  and  yet  these  are  not  cattle,  they  are  men. 

With  despair  in  their  hearts  they  move  on,  to  die 
of  hunger,  or  cold,  or  disease,  or,  if  they  survive, 
to  be  brought  within  range  of  a  storm  of  bullets 
and  commanded  to  kill.  They  kill  and  are  killed, 
none  of  them  knows  why  or  to  what  end.  An 
ambitious  stripling  has  only  to  brandish  his  sword 
and  shout  a  few  magniloquent  words  to  induce 
them  to  rush  to  certain  death.  And  yet  no  one 
finds  this  to  be  difficult.  Neither  the  victims,  nor 
those  whom  they  have  forsaken,  find  anything  diffi- 
cult in  such  sacrifices,  in  which  parents  encourage 
their  children  to  take  part.  It  seems  to  them  not 
only  that  such  things  should  be,  but  that  they  could 
not  be  otherwise,  and  that  they  are  altogether 
admirable  and  moral. 

If  the  practice  of  the  doctrine  of  the  world  were 
easy,  agreeable,  and  without  danger,  we  might  per- 
haps believe  that  the  practice  of  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  is  difficult,  frightful,  and  cruel.  But  the 
doctrine  of  the  world  is  much  more  difficult,  more 
dangerous,  and  more  cruel,  than  is  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus.  Formerly,  we  are  told,  there  were  martyrs 
for  the  cause  of  Jesus  ;  but  they  were  exceptional. 
We  cannot  count  up  more  than  about  three  hundred 
and  eighty  thousand  of  them,  voluntary  and  invol- 
untary, in  the  whole  course  of  eighteen  hundred 
years ;  but  who  shall  count  the  martyrs  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  world?  For  each  Christian  martyr 
there  have  been  a  thousand  martyrs  to  the  doctrine 


MY  RELIGION.  193 

of  the  world,  and  the  sufferings  of  each  one  of 
them  have  been  a  hundred  times  more  cruel  than 
those  endured  by  the  others.  The  number  of  the 
victims  of  wars  in  our  century  alone  amounts  to 
thirty  millions  of  men.  These  are  the  martyrs  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  world,  who  would  have  escaped 
suffering  and  death  even  if  they  had  refused*  to  fol- 
low the  doctrine  of  the  world,  to  say  nothing  of 
following  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 

If  a  man  will  cease  to  have  faith  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  world  ahd  not  think  it  indispensable  to  wear 
varnished  boots  and  a  gold  chain,  to  maintain  a 
useless  salon,  or  to  do  the  various  other  foolish 
things  the  doctrine  of  the  world  demands,  he  will 
never  know  the  effects  of  brutalizing  occupations, 
of  unlimited  suffering,  of  the  anxieties  of  a  per- 
petual struggle  ;  he  will  remain  in  communion  with 
nature ;  he  will  be  deprived  neither  of  the  work  he 
loves,  or  of  his  family,  or  of  his  health,  and  he 
will  not  perish  by  a  cruel  and  brutish  death. 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus  does  not  exact  martyrdom 
similar  to  that  of  the  doctrine  of  the  world ;  it 
teaches  us  rather  how  to  put  an  end  to  the  suffer- 
ings that  men  endure  in  the  name  of  the  false 
doctrine  of  the  world.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  has 
a  profound  metaphysical  meaning  ;  it  has  a  meaning 
as  an  expression  of  the  aspirations  of  humanity ; 
but  it  has  also  for  each  individual  a  very  simple, 
very  clear,  and  very  practical  meaning  with  regard 
to  the  conduct  of  his  own  life.  In  fact,  we  might 
say  that  Jesus  taught  men  not  to  do  foolish  things. 


194  MY  RELIGION. 

The  meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  simple 
and  accessible  to  all. 

Jesus  said  that  we  were  not  to  be  angry,  and  not 
to  consider  ourselves  as  better  than  others ;  if  we 
were  angry  and  offended  others,  so  much  the  worse 
for  us.  Again,  he  said  that  we  were  to  avoid  liber- 
tinism, and  to  that  end  choose  one  woman,  to  whom 
we  should  remain  faithful.  Once  more,  he  said 
that  we  were  not  to  bind  ourselves  by  promises  or 
oaths  to  the  service  of  those  who  may  constrain  us 
to  commit  acts  of  folly  and  wickedifess.  Then  he 
said  that  we  were  not  to  return  evil  for  evil,  lest  the 
evil  rebound  upon  ourselves  with  redoubled  force. 
And,  finally,  he  says  that  we  are  not  to  consider 
men  as  foreigners  because  they  dwell  in  another 
country  and  speak  a  language  different  from  our 
own.  And  the  conclusion  is,  that  if  we  avoid  doing 
any  of  these  foolish  things,  we  shall  be  happy. 

This  is  all  very  well  (we  say) ,  but  the  world  is  so 
organized  that,  if  we  place  ourselves  in  opposition 
to  it,  our  condition  will  be  much  more  calamitous 
than  if  we  live  in  accordance  with  its  doctrine.  If 
a  man  refuses  to  perform  military  service,  he  will 
be  shut  up  in  a  fortress,  and  possibly  will  be  shot. 
If  a  man  will  not  do  what  is  necessary  for  the  sup- 
port of  himself  and  his  family,  he  and  his  family 
will  starve.  Thus  argue  the  people  who  feel  them- 
selves obliged  to  defend  the  existing  social  organi- 
zation ;  but  they  do  not  believe  in  the  truth  of  their 
own  words.  They  only  say  this  because  they  can- 
not deny  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  which 


MY  RELIGION.  195 

they  profess,  and  because  they  must  justify  them- 
selves in  some  way  for  their  failure  to  practise  it. 
They  not  only  do  not  believe  in  what  they  say ;  they 
have  never  given  any  serious  consideration  to  the 
subject.  They  have  faith  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
world,  and  they  only  make  use  of  the  plea  they 
have  learned  from  the  Church,  —  that  much  suffer- 
ing is  inevitable  for  those  who  would  practise  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  ;  and  so  they  have  never  tried  to 
practise  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  at  all. 

We  see  enough  of  the  frightful  suffering  endured 
by  men  in  following  the  doctrine  of  the  world,  but 
in  these  times  we  hear  nothing  of  suffering  in  behalf 
of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  Thirty  millions  of  men 
have  perished  in  wars,  fought  in  behalf  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  world  ;  thousands  of  millions  of  beings 
have  perished,  crushed  by  a  social  system  organized 
on  the  principle  of  the  doctrine  of  the  world ;  but 
where,  in  our  day,  shall  we  find  a  million,  a  thousand, 
a  dozen,  or  a  single  one,  who  has  died  a  cruel  death, 
or  has  even  suffered  from  hunger  and  cold,  in  behalf 
of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  ?  This  fear  of  suffering  is 
only  a  puerile  excuse  that  proves  how  little  we  really 
know  of  Jesus'  doctrine.  We  not  only  do  not  follow 
it ;  we  do  not  even  take  it  seriously.  The  Church 
has  explained  it  in  such  a  way  that  it  seems  to  be, 
not  the  doctrine  of  a  happy  life,  but  a  bugbear,  a 
source  of  terror. 

Jesus  calls  men  to  drink  of  a  well  of  living  water, 
which  is  free  to  all.  Men  are  parched  with  thirst, 
they  have  eaten  of  filth  and  drunk  blood,  but  they 


126  MY  RELIGION. 

have  been  told  that  they  will  perish  if  they  drink  of 
this  water  that  is  offered  them  by  Jesus,  and  men 
believe  in  the  warnings  of  superstition.  They  die 
in  torment,  with  the  water  that  they  dare  not  touch 
within  their  reach.  If  they  would  only  have  faith  in 
Jesus'  words,  and  go  to  this  well  of  living  water  and 
quench  their  thirst,  they  would  realize  how  cunning 
has  been  the  imposture  practised  upon  them  by  the 
Church,  and  how  needlessly  their  sufferings  have 
been  prolonged.  If  they  would  only  accept  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus,  frankly  and  simply,  they  would  see 
at  once  the  horrible  error  of  which  we  are  each  and 
all  the  victims. 

One  generation  after  another  strives  to  find  the 
security  of  its  existence  in  violence,  and  by  violence 
to  protect  its  privileges.  We  believe  that  the  hap- 
piness of  our  life  is  in  power,  and  domination,  and 
abundance  of  worldly  goods.  We  are  so  habituated 
to  this  idea  that  we  are  alarmed  at  the  sacrifices  ex- 
acted by  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  which  teaches  that 
man's  happiness  does  not  depend  upon  fortune  and 
power,  and  that  the  rich  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.  But  this  is  a  false  idea  of  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  which  teaches  us,  not  to  do  what  is  the 
worst,  but  to  do  what  is  the  best  for  ourselves  here 
in  this  present  life.  Inspired  by  his  love  for  men, 
Jesus  taught  them  not  to  depend  upon  a  security 
based  upon  violence,  and  not  to  seek  after  riches, 
just  as  we  teach  the  common  people  to  abstain,  for 
their  own  interest,  from  quarrels  and  intemperance. 
He  said  that  if  men  lived  without  defending  them- 


MY  RELIGION.  197 

selves  against  violence,  and  without  possessing 
riches,  they  would  be  more  happj- ;  and  he  confirms 
his  words  by  the  example  of  his  life.  He  said  that 
a  man  who  lives  according  to  his  doctrine  must  be 
ready  at  any  moment  to  endure  violence  from  others, 
and,  possibly,  to  die  of  hunger  and  cold.  But  this 
warning,  which  seems  to  exact  such  great  and  un- 
bearable sacrifices,  is  simply  a  statement  of  the  con- 
ditions under  which  men  alwa}rs  have  existed,  and 
always  will  continue  to  exist. 

A  disciple  of  Jesus  should  be  prepared  for  every- 
thing, and  especially  for  suffering  and  death.  But 
is  the  disciple  of  the  world  in  a  more  desirable  situ- 
ation? We  are  so  accustomed  to  believe  in  all  we 
do  for  the  so-called  security  of  life  (the  organization 
of  armies,  the  building  of  fortresses,  the  provisioning 
of  troops),  that  our  wardrobes,  our  systems  of  medi- 
cal treatment,  our  furniture,  and  our  mone}*,  all  seem 
like  real  and  stable  pledges  of  our  existence.  We 
forget  the  fate  of  him  who  resolved  to  build  greater 
storehouses  to  provide  an  abundance  for  many  years  : 
he  died  in  a  night.  Everything  that  we  do  to  make 
our  existence  secure  is  like  the  act  of  the  ostrich, 
when  she  hides  her  head  in  the  sand,  and  does  not 
see  that  her  destruction  is  near.  But  we  are  even 
more  foolish  than  the  ostrich.  To  establish  the 
doubtful  security  of  an  uncertain  life  in  an  uncertain 
future,  we  sacrifice  a  life  of  certainty  in  a  present 
that  we  might  really  possess. 

The  illusion  is  in  the  firm  conviction  that  our  ex- 
istence can  be  made  secure  by  a  struggle  with  others. 


198  MY  RELIGION. 

We  are  so  accustomed  to  this  illusory  so-called  se- 
curity of  our  existence  and  our  property,  that  we  do 
not  realize  what  we  lose  by  striving  after  it.  We 
lose  everything,  — we  lose  life  itself.  Our  whole 
life  is  taken  up  with  anxiety  for  personal  security, 
with  preparations  for  living,  so  that  we  really  never 
live  at  all. 

If  we  take  a  general  survey  of  our  lives,  we  shall 
see  that  all  our  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  so-called  se- 
curity of  existence  are  not  made  at  all  for  the  assur- 
ance of  security,  but  simply  to  help  us  to  forget  that 
existence  never  has  been,  and  never  can  be,  secure. 
But  it  is  not  enough  to  say  that  we  are  the  dupes  of 
our  own  illusions,  and  that  we  forfeit  the  true  life- 
for  an  imaginary  life  ;  our  efforts  for  security  often 
result  in  the  destruction  of  what  we  most  wish  to 
preserve.  The  French  took  up  arms  in  1870  to  make 
their  national  existence  secure,  and  the  attempt 
resulted  in  the  destruction  of  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  Frenchmen.  All  people  who  take  up  arms  un- 
dergo the  same  experience.  The  rich  man  believes 
that  his  existence  is  secure  because  he  possesses 
mone\",  and  his  money  attracts  a  thief  who  kills  him. 
The  invalid  thinks  to  make  his  life  secure  by  the  use 
of  medicines,  and  the  medicines  slowly  poison  him ; 
if  they  do  not  bring  about  his  death,  the}'  at  least 
deprive  him  of  life,  till  he  is  like  the  impotent  man 
who  waited  thirty-five  years  at  the  pool  for  an  angel 
to  come  down  and  trouble  the  waters.  The  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  which  teaches  us  that  we  cannot  possibly 
make  life  secure,  but  that  we  must  be  ready  to  die 


MY  RELIGION.  199 

at  any  moment,  is  unquestionably  preferable  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  world,  which  obliges  us  to  struggle 
for  the  security  of  existence.  It  is  preferable  be- 
cause the  impossibility  of  escaping  death,  and  the 
impossibility  of  making  life  secure,  is  the  same  for 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  as  it  is  for  the  disciples  of  the 
world ;  but,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  life  « 
itself  is  not  absorbed  in  the  idle  attempt  to  make 
existence  secure.  To  the  follower  of  Jesus  life  is 
free,  and  can  be  devoted  to  the  end  for  which  it  is 
worthy,  —  its  own  welfare  and  the  welfare  of  others. 
The  disciple  of  Jesus  will  be  poor,  but  that  is  only 
saying  that  he  will  always  enjoy  the  gifts  that  God 
has  lavished  upon  men.  He  will  not  ruin  his  own 
existence.  We  make  the  word  poverty  a  synonym 
for  calamity,  but  it  is  in  truth  a  source  of  happiness, 
and  however  much  we  may  regard  it  as  a  calamit}', 
it  remains  a  source  of  happiness  still.  To  be  poor 
means  not  to  live  in  cities,  but  in  the  country,  not 
to  be  shut  up  in  close  rooms,  but  to  labor  out  of 
doors,  in  the  woods  and  fields,  to  have  the  delights 
of  sunshine,  of  the  open  heavens,  of  the  earth,  of 
observing  the  habits  of  dumb  animals  ;  not  to  rack 
our  brains  with  inventing  dishes  to  stimulate  an  ap- 
petite, and  not  to  endure  the  pangs  of  indigestion. 
To  be  poor  is  to  be  hungry  three  times  a  day,  to 
sleep  without  passing  hours  tossing  upon  the  pillow 
a  victim  of  insomnia,  to  have  children,  and  have 
them  always  with  us,  to  do  nothing  that  we  do  not 
wish  to  do  (this  is  essential) ,  and  to  have  no  fear 
for  anything  that  may  happen.      The  poor  person 


200  MY  RELIGION. 

will  be  ill  and  will  suffer ;  he  will  die  like  the  rest  of 
the  world  ;  but  his  sufferings  and  his  death  will  prob- 
ably be  less  painful  than  those  of  the  rich ;  and  he 
will  certainly  live  more  happily.  Poverty  is  one  of 
the  conditions  of  following  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  a 
condition  indispensable  to  those  who  would  enter 
r  into  the  kingdom  of  God  and  be  happy. 

The  objection  to  this  is,  that  no  one  will  care  for 
us,  and  that  we  shall  be  left  to  die  of  hunger.  To 
this  objection  we  may  reply  in  the  words  of  Jesus, 
(words  that  have  been  interpreted  to  justify  the 
idleness  of  the  clergy)  :  — 

"  Get  you  no  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  brass  in  your 
purses;  no  wallet  for  your  journey,  neither  two  coats, 
nor  shoes,  nor.  staff:  for  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his 
food"  (Matt.  x.  10). 

"And  into  whatsoever,  house  ye  shall  enter,  .  .  .  in 
that  same  house  remain,  eating  and  drinking  such 
'things  as  they  give:  for  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his 
hire"  (Luke  x.  5,  7). 

The  laborer  is  worthy  of  (agio's  ianv  means,  word 
for  word,  can  and  ought  to  have)  his  food.  It  is  a 
very  short  sentence,  but  he  who  understands  it  as 
Jesus  understood  it,  will  no  longer  have  any  fear  of 
dying  of  hunger.  To  understand  the  true  meaning 
of  these  words  we  must  get  rid  of  that  traditional 
idea  which  we  have  developed  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  redemption  that  man's  felicity  consists  in  idle- 
ness. We  must  get  back  to  that  point  of  view 
natural  to  all  men  who  are  not  fallen,  that  work, 
and  not  idleness,  is  the  indispensable  condition  of 


MY  RELIGION.  201 

happiness  for  every  human  being  ;  that  man  cannot, 
in  fact,  refrain  from  work.  We  must  rid  ourselves 
of  the  savage  prejudice  which  leads  us  to  think 
that  a  man  who  has  an  income  from  a  place  under 
the  government,  from  landed  property,  or  from 
stocks  and  bonds,  is  in  a  natural  and  happy  posi- 
tion because  he  is  relieved  from  the  necessity  of 
work.  We  must  get  back  into  the  human  brain  the 
idea  of  work  possessed  by  undegenerate  men,  the 
idea  that  Jesus  has,  when  he  says  that  the  laborer 
is  worthy  of  his  food.  Jesus  did  not  imagine  that 
men  would  regard  work  as  a  curse,  and  conse- 
quently he  did  not  have  in  mind  a  man  who  would 
not  work,  or  desired  not  to  work.  He  supposed 
that  all  his  disciples  would  work,  and  so  he  said 
that  if  a  man  would  work,  his  work  would  bring 
him  food.  He  who  makes  use  of  the  labor  of 
another  will  provide  food  for  him  who  labors,  sim- 
pty  because  he  profits  by  that  labor.  And  so  he 
who  works  will  always  have  food ;  he  may  not  have 
property,  but  as  to  food,  there*  need  be  no  uncer- 
tainty whatever. 

With  regard  to  work  there  is  a  difference  between 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the  doctrine  of  the  world. 
According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  world,  it  is  very 
meritorious  in  a  man  to  be  willing  to  work ;  he  is 
thereby  enabled  to  enter  into  competition  with 
others,  and  to  demand  wages  proportionate  to  his 
qualifications.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
labor  is  the  inevitable  condition  of  human  life, 
and  food  is  the  inevitable   consequence   of   labor. 


202  MY  RELIGION. 

Labor  produces  food,  and  food  produces  labor. 
However  cruel  and  grasping  the  employer  may  be, 
he  will  always  feed  his  workman,  as  he  will  always 
feed  his  horse  ;  he  feeds  him  that  he  may  get  all  the 
work  possible,  and  in  this  way  he  contributes  to  the 
welfare  of  the  workman. 

4 '  For  verily  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  min- 
istered u?ito,  but  to  minister  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many." 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  every  indi- 
vidual will  be  the  happier  the  more  clearlj-  he  un- 
derstands that  his  vocation  consists,  not  in  exact- 
ing service  from  others,  but  in  ministering  to  others, 
in  giving  his  life  for  the  ransom  of  man}'.  A  man 
who  does  this  will  be  worthy  of  his  food  and  will 
not  fail  to  have  it.  By  the  words,  "  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto  but  to  minister  "  Jesus  established  a 
method  which  would  insure  the  material  existence 
of  man;  and  by  the  words,  "  the  laborer  is  worthy 
of  his  food"  he  anwered  once  for  all  the  objection 
that  a  man  who  should  practise  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  in  the  midst  of  those  who  do  not  practise  it 
would  be  in  danger  of  perishing  from  hunger  and 
cold.  Jesus  practised  his  own  doctrine  amid  great 
opposition,  and  he  did  not  perish  from  hunger  and 
cold.  He  showed  that  a  man  does  not  insure  his 
own  subsistence  by  amassing  worldly  goods  at  the 
expense  of  others,  but  by  rendering  himself  useful 
and  indispensable  to  others.  The  more  necessary 
he  is  to  others,  the  more  will  his  existence  be  made 
secure. 


MY  RELIGION.  203 

There  are  in  the  world  as  it  is  now  organized 
millions  of  men  who  possess  no  property  and  do 
not  practise  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  by  ministering 
unto  others,  but  the}'  do  not  die  of  hunger.  How, 
then,  can  we  object  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  that 
those  who  practise  it  by  working  for  others  will 
perish  for  want  of  food  ?  Men  cannot  die  of  hun- 
ger while  the  rich  have  bread.  In  Russia  there  are 
millions  of  men  who  possess  nothing  and  subsist 
entirely  by  their  own  toil.  The  existence  of  a 
Christian  would  be  as  secure  among  pagans  as  it 
would  be  among  those  of  his  own  faith.  He  would 
labor  for  others ;  he  would  be  necessary  to  them, 
and  therefore  he  would  be  fed.  Even  a  dog,  if  he 
be  useful,  is  fed  and  cared  for ;  and  shall  not  a 
man  be  fed  and  cared  for  whose  service  is  neces- 
sary to  the  whole  world? 

But  those  who  seek  by  all  possible  means  to  jus- 
tify the  personal  life  have  another  objection.  They 
sa}r  that  if  a  man  be  sick,  even  if  he  have  a  wife, 
parents,  and  children  dependent  upon  him,  —  if  this 
man  cannot  work,  he  will  not  be  fed.  They  say  so, 
and  they  will  continue  to  say  so ;  but  their  own 
actions  prove  that  Lhey  do  not  believe  what  they 
say.  These  same  people  who  will  not  admit  that 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  practicable,  practice  it  to  a 
certain  extent  themselves.  They  do  not  cease  to 
care  for  a  sick  sheep,  a  sick  ox,  or  a  sick  dog. 
They  do  not  kill  an  old  horse,  but  they  give  him 
work  in  proportion  to  his  strength.  They  care  for 
all  sorts  of  animals  without  expecting  any  benefit 


204  MY  RELIGION. 

in  return ;  and  can  it  be  that  they  will  not  care  for 
a  useful  man  who  has  fallen  sick,  that  they  will  not 
find  work  suited  to  the  strength  of  the  old  man  and 
the  child,  that  they  will  not  care  for  the  very  babes 
who  later  on  will  be  able  to  work  for  them  in  re- 
turn? As  a  matter  of  fact  they  do  all  this.  Nine- 
tenths  of  men  are  cared  for  by  the  other  tenth,  like 
so  many  cattle.  And  however  great  the  darkness 
in  which  this  one-tenth  live,  however  mistaken  their 
views  in  regard  to  the  other  nine-tenths  of  humanity, 
the  tenth,  even  if  they  had  the  power,  would  not  de- 
prive the  other  nine-tenths  of  food.  The  rich  will 
not  deprive  the  poor  of  what  is  necessary,  because 
they  wish  them  to  multiply  and  work,  and  so  in 
these  days  the  little  minority  of  rich  people  provide 
directly  or  indirectly  for  the  nourishment  of  the 
majority,  that  the  latter  may  furnish  the  maximum 
of  work,  and  multiply,  and  bring  up  a  new  supply 
of  workers.  Ants  care  for  the  increase  and  welfare 
of  their  slaves.  Shall  not  men  care  for  those  whose 
labor  they  find  necessary  ?  Laborers  are  necessary. 
And  those  who  profit  by  labor  will  always  be  care- 
ful to  provide  the  means  of  labor  for  those  who  are 
willing  to  work. 

The  objection  concerning  the  possibility  of  prac- 
tising the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  that  if  men  do  not 
acquire  something  for  themselves  and  have  wealth 
in  reserve  no  one  will  take  care  of  their  families,  is 
true,  but  it  is  true  only  in  regard  to  idle  and  use- 
less and  obnoxious  people  such  as  make  up  the 
majority  of  our  opulent  classes.     No  one  (with  the 


MY  RELIGION.  205 

exception  of  foolish  parents)  takes  the  trouble  to 
care  for  lazy  people,  because  lazy  people  are  of  no 
use  to  any  one,  not  even  to  themselves ;  as  for  the 
workers,  the  most  selfish  and  cruel  of  men  will  con- 
tribute to  their  welfare.  People  breed  and  train 
and  care  for  oxen,  and  a  man,  as  a  beast  of  bur- 
den, is  much  more  useful  than  an  ox,  as  the  tariff  of 
the  slave-mart  shows.  This  is  why  children  will 
never  be  left  without  support. 

Man  is  not  in  the  world  to  work  for  himself;1 
he  is  in  the  world  to  work  for  others,  and  the 
laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  These  truths  are 
justified  by  universal  experience  ;  now,  always,  and 
everywhere,  the  man  who  labors  receives  the  means 
of  bodily  subsistence.  This  subsistence  is  assured 
to  him  who  works  against  his  will ;  for  such  a  work- 
man desires  only  to  relieve  himself  of  the  necessity 
of  work,  and  acquires  all  that  he  possibly  can  in 
order  that  he  may  take  the  yoke  from  his  own  neck 
and  place  it  upon  the  neck  of  another.  A  work- 
man like  this  —  envious,  grasping,  toiling  against 
Ms  will  —  will  never  lack  for  food  and  will  be  hap- 
pier than  one,  who  without  labor,  lives  upon  the 
labor  of  others.  How  much  more  happy,  then,  will 
that  laborer  be  who  labors  in  obedience  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  with  the  object  of  accomplishing  all 
the  work  of  which  he  is  capable  and  wishing  for  it 
the  least  possible  return  ?  How  much  more  desira- 
ble will  his  condition  be,  as,  little  by  little,  he  sees 
his  example  followed  by  others.  For  services  ren- 
dered he  will  then  be  the  recipient  of  equal  services 
in  return. 


206  MY  RELIGION. 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus  with  regard  to  labor  and 
the  fruits  of  labor  is  expressed  in  the  story  of  the 
loaves  and  fishes,  wherein  it  was  shown  that  man 
enjoys  the  greatest  sum  of  the  benefits  accessible  to 
humanity,  not  by  appropriating  all  that  he  can  pos- 
sibly grasp  and  using  what  he  has  for  his  personal 
pleasure,  but  by  administering  to  the  needs  of 
others,  as  Jesus  did  by  the  borders  of  Galilee. 

There  were  several  thousand  men  and  women  to 
be  fed.  One  of  the  disciples  told  Jesus  that  there 
was  a  lad  who  had  five  loaves  and  two  fishes.  Jesus 
understood  that  some  of  the  people  coming  from  a 
distance  had  brought  provisions  with  them  and 
that  some  had  not,  for  after  all  were  filled,  the  dis- 
ciples gathered  up  twelve  basketsful  of  fragments. 
(If  no  one  but  the  boy  had  brought  anything,  how 
could  so  much  have  been  left  after  so  many  were 
fed?)  If  Jesus  had  not  set  them  an  example,  the 
people  would  have  acted  as  people  of  the  world  act 
now.  Some  of  those  who  had  food  would  have 
eaten  all  that  they  had  through  gluttony  or  avidity, 
and  some,  afte/  eating  wmat  they  could  eat,  would 
have  taken  the  rest  to  their  homes.  Those  who  had 
nothing  would  have  been  famished,  and  would  have 
regarded  their  more  fortunate  companions  with  envy 
and  hatred  ;  some  of  them  would  perhaps  have  tried 
to  take  food  by  force  from  them  who  had  it,  and  so 
hunger  and  anger  and  quarrels  would  have  been  the 
result.  That  is,  the  multitude  would  have  acted 
just  as  people  act  nowadays. 

But  Jesus  knew  exactly  what  to  do.     He  asked 


MY  RELIGION.  207 

that  all  be  made  to  sit  down,  and  then  commanded 
his  disciples  to  give  of  what  they  had  to  those  who 
had  nothing,  and  to  request  others  to  do  the  same. 
The  result  was  that  those  who  had  food  followed  the 
example  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  and  offered  what 
they  had  to  others.  Every  one  ate  and  was  satisfied, 
and  with  the  broken  pieces  that  remained  the  dis- 
ciples filled  twelve  baskets. 

Jesus  teaches  every  man  to  govern  his  life  by  the 
law  of  reason  and  conscience,  for  the  law  of  reason 
is  as  applicable  to  the  individual  as  it  is  to  humanity 
at  large.  Work  is  the  inevitable  condition  of  human 
life,  the  true  source  of  human  welfare.  For  this 
reason  a  refusal  to  divide  the  fruits  of  one's  labor 
with  others  is  a  refusal  to  accept  the  conditions  of 
true  happiness.  To  give  of  the  fruits  of  one's  labor 
to  others  is  to  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  all  men. 
The  retort  is  made  that  if  men  did  not  wrest  food 
from  others,  they  would  die  of  hunger.  To  me  it 
seems  more  reasonable  to  say,  that  if  men  do  wrest 
their  food  from  one  another,  some  of  them  will  die 
of  hunger,  and  experience  confirms  this  view. 

Every  man,  whether  he  lives  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  or  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
world,  lives  only  03-  the  sufferance  and  care  of  others. 
From  his  birth,  man  is  cared  for  and  nourished  by 
others.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  world, 
man  has  a  right  to  demand  that  others  should  con- 
tinue to  nourish  and  care  for  him  and  for  his  family, 
but,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  he  is  only 
entitled  to  care  and  nourishment  on  the  condition 


208  MY  RELIGION. 

that  he  do  all  he  can  for  the  service  of  others,  and 
so  render  himself  useful  and  indispensable  to  man- 
kind. Men  who  live  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
world  are  usually  anxious  to  rid  themselves  of  any 
one  who  is  useless  and  whom  they  are  obliged  to 
feed  ;  at  the  first  possible  opportunity  they  cease  to 
feed  such  a  one,  and  leave  him  to  die,  because  of  his 
uselessness  ;  but  him  who  lives  for  others  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  all  men,  however  wicked 
they  may  be,  will  always  nourish  and  care  for,  that 
he  may  continue  to  labor  in  their  behalf. 

Which,  then,  is  the  more  reasonable  ;  which  offers 
the  more  joy  and  the  greater  security,  a  life  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  the  world,  or  a  life  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  ? 


CHAPTER     XI. 

THE  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  to  bring  the  kingdom 
of  God  upon  earth.  The  practice  of  this  doc- 
trine is  not  difficult ;  and  not  only  so,  its  practice 
is  a  natural  expression  of  the  belief  of  all  who 
recognize  its  truth.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  offers 
the  only  possible  chance  of  salvation  for  those  who 
would  escape  the  perdition  that  threatens  the  per- 
sonal life.  The  fulfilment  of  this  doctrine  not  only 
will  deliver  men  from  the  privations  and  sufferings 
of  this  life,  but  will  put  an  end  to  nine-tenths  of 
the  suffering  endured  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  world. 

When  I  understood  this  I  asked  myself  why  I  had 
never  practised  a  doctrine  which  would  give  me  so 
much  happiness  and  peace  and  joy ;  why,  on  the 
other  hand,  I  always  had  practised  an  entirety  dif- 
ferent doctrine,  and  thereby  made  myself  wretched? 
Why?  The  reply  was  a  simple  one.  Because  I 
never  had  known  the  truth.  The  truth  had  been 
concealed  from  me. 

When  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  was  first  revealed  to 

me,  I  did  not  believe  that  the  discovery  would  lead 

me  to  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.1     I  dreaded 

this  separation,  and  in  the  course  of  my  studies  I 

1  See  Appendix. 


210  MY  RELIGION. 

did  not  attempt  to  search  out  the  errors  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church.  I  sought,  rather,  to  close  my 
eyes  to  propositions  that  seemed  to  be  obscure  and 
strange,  provided  they  were  not  in  evident  contra- 
diction with  what  I  regarded  as  the  substance  of  the 
Christian  doctrine. 

But  the  further  I  advanced  in  the  study  of  the 
Gospels,  and  the  more  clearly  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
was  revealed  to  me,  the  more  inevitable  the  choice 
became.  I  must  either  accept  the  doctrine  of  Jesus, 
a  reasonable  and  simple  doctrine  in  accordance  with 
my  conscience  and  my  hope  of  salvation  ;  or  I  must 
accept  an  entirely  different  doctrine,  a  doctrine  in 
opposition  to  reason  and  conscience  and  that  offered 
me  nothing  except  the  certainty  of  my  own  perdition 
and  that  of  others.  I  was  therefore  forced  to  reject, 
one  after  another,  the  dogmas  of  the  Church.  This 
I  did  against  my  will,  struggling  with  the  desire  to 
mitigate  as  much  as  possible  my  disagreement  with 
the  Church,  that  I  might  not  be  obliged  to  separate 
from  the  Church,  and  thereby  deprive  myself  of  com- 
munion with  fellow-believers,  the  greatest  happiness 
that  religion  can  bestow.  But  when  I  had  completed 
m}'  task,  I  saw  that  in  spite  of  all  my  efforts  to  main- 
tain a  connecting  link  with  the  Church,  the  separation 
was  complete.  I  knew  before  that  the  bond  of 
union,  if  it  existed  at  all,  must  be  a  very  slight  one, 
but  I  was  soon  convinced  that  it  did  not  exist  at  all. 

My  son  came  to  me  one  da}',  after  I  had  completed 
my  examination  of  the  Gospels,  and  told  me  of  a 
discussion  that  was  going  on  between  two  domestics 


MY  RELIGION.  211 

(uneducated  persons  who  scarcely  knew  how  to 
read)  concerning  a  passage  in  some  religious  book 
which  maintained  that  it  was  not  a  sin  to  put  crim- 
inals to  death,  or  to  kill  enemies  in  war.  I  could  not 
believe  that  an  assertion  of  this  sort  could  be  printed 
in  any  book,  and  I  asked  to  see  it.  The  volume  bore 
the  title  of  UA  Book  of  Selected  Prayers;  third 
edition;  eighth  ten  thousand;  Moscow:  1879.''  On 
page  163  of  this  book  I  read :  — 

"  What  is  the  sixth  commandment  of  God? 

4 'Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

"  What  does  God  forbid  by  this  commandment? 

u  He  forbids  us  to  kill,  to  take  the  life  of  any  man. 

44  Is  it  a  sin  to  punish  a  criminal  with  death  accord- 
ing to  the  law,  or  to  kill  an  enemy  in  war  ? 

"  No  ;  that  is  not  a  sin.  We  take  the  life  of  the 
criminal  to  put  an  end  to  the  wrong  that  he  commits  ; 
we  slay  an  enenry  in  war,  because  in  war  we  light 
for  our  sovereign  and  our  native  land." 

And  in  this  manner  was  enjoined  the  abrogation 
of  the  law  of  God  !  I  could  scarcely  believe  that  I 
had  read  aright. 

My  opinion  was  nsked  with  regard  to  the  subject 
at  issue.  To  the  one  who  maintained  that  the  in- 
struction given  by  the  book  was  true,  I  said  that  the 
explanation  was  not  correct. 

"Why,  then,  do  they  print  untrue  explanations 
contrary  to  the  law?"  was  his  question,  to  which  I 
could  say  nothing  in  reply. 

I  kept  the  volume  and  looked  over  its  contents. 
The  book  contained  thirty-one  prayers  with  instruc- 


212  MY  RELIGION. 

tions  concerning  genuflexions  and  the  joining  of  the 
fingers ;  an  explanation  of  the  Credo ;  a  citation 
from  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew  without  any  ex- 
planation whatever,  but  headed,  '*  Commands  for 
those  who  would  possess  the  Beatitudes  "  ;  the  ten 
commandments  accompanied  by  comments  that  ren- 
dered most  of  them  void ;  and  hymns  for  every 
saint's  daj*. 

As  I  have  said,  I  not  only  had  sought  to  avoid 
censure  of  the  religion  of  the  Church ;  I  had  done 
my  best  to  see  only  its  most  favorable  side ;  and 
knowing  its  academic  literature  from  beginning  to 
end,  I  had  paid  no  attention  whatever  to  its  popular 
literature.  This  book  of  devotion,  spread  broadcast 
in  an  enormous  number  of  copies,  awakening  doubts 
in  the  minds  of  the  most  unlearned  people,  set  me  to 
thinking.  The  contents  of  the  book  seemed  to  me 
so  entirely  pagan,  so  wholly  out  of  accord  with 
Christianit}',  that  I  could  not  believe  it  to  be  the 
deliberate  purpose  of  the  Church  to  propagate  such 
a  doctrine.  To  verify  my  belief,  I  bought  and  read 
all  the  books  published  by  the  synod  with  its  "bene- 
diction "  (blagoslovnia) ,  containing  brief  expositions 
of  the  religion  of  the  Church  for  the  use  of  children 
and  the  common  people. 

Their  contents  were  to  me  almost  entirely  new,  for 
at  the  time  when  I  received  my  early  religious  instruc- 
tion, they  had  not  yet  appeared.  As  far  as  I  could  re- 
member there  were  no  commandments  with  regard  to 
the  beatitudes,  and  there  was  no  doctrine  which  taught 
that  it  was  not  a  sin  to  kill.     No  such  teachings  ap 


MY  RELIGION.  213 

« 

peared  in  the  old  catechisms  ;  the}'  were  not  to  bo 
found  in  the  catechism  of  Peter  Mogilas,  or  in  that 
of  Beliokof,  or  the  abridged  Catholic  catechisms. 
The  innovation  was  introduced  by  the  metropolitan 
Philaret,  who  prepared  a  catechism  with  proper  re- 
gard for  the  susceptibilities  of  the  military  class,  and 
from  this  catechism  the  Book  of  Selected  Prayers 
was  compiled.  Philaret's  work  is  entitled,  The 
Christian  Catechism  of  the  Orthodox  Church,  for  the 
Use  of  all  Orthodox  Christians,  and  is  published, 
"  by  order  of  his  Imperial  Majesty."  1 

The  book  is  divided  into  three  parts,  "Concern- 
ing Faith,"  "  Concerning  Hope,"  and  "  Concerning 
Love."  The  first  part  contains  the  analysis  of  the 
symbol  of  faith  as  given  by  the  Council  of  Nice. 
The  second  part  is  made  up  of  an  exposition  of  the 
Pater  Noster,  and  the  first  eight  verses  of  the  fifth 
chapter  of  Matthew,  which  serve  as  an  introduction 
to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  are  called  (I  know 
not  why)  "  Commands  for  those  who  would  possess 
the  Beatitudes."  These  first  two  parts  treat  of  the 
dogmas  of  the  Church,  prayers,  and  the  sacraments, 
but  they  contain  no  rules  with  regard  to  the  conduct 
of  life.  The  third  part,  "Concerning  Love,"  con- 
tains an  exposition  of  Christian  duties,  based  not  on 
the  commandments  of  Jesus,  but  upon  the  ten  com- 
mandments of  Moses.  This  exposition  of  the  com- 
mandments of  Moses  seems  to  have  been  made  for 
the  especial  purpose  of  teaching  men  not  to  obey 

1  This  book  has  been  in  use  in  all  the  schools  and  churches  of 
Russia  since  1839.  —  Tr. 


214  MY  RELIGION. 

* 

them.  Each  commandment  is  followed  by  a  reser- 
vation which  completely  destroys  it  force.  With  re- 
gard to  the  first  commandment,  which  enjoins  the 
worship  of  God  alone,  the  catechism  inculcates  the 
worship  of  saints  and  angels,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
Mother  of  God  and  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity 
("  Special  Catechism,"  pp.  107,  108).  With  regard 
to  the  second  commandment,  against  the  worship  of 
idols,  the  catechism  enjoins  the  worship  of  images 
(p.  108).  With  regard  to  the  third  commandment, 
the  catechism  enjoins  the  taking  of  oaths  as  the 
principal  token  of  legitimate  authority  (p.  111). 
With  regard  to  the  fourth  commandment,  concern- 
ing the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  the  catechism 
inculcates  the  observance  of  Sunday,  of  the  thirteen 
principal  feasts,  of  a  number  of  feasts  of  less  impor- 
tance, the  observance  of  Lent,  and  of  fasts  on 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  (pp.  112-115).  With  re- 
gard to  the  fifth  commandment,  "  Honor  thy  father 
and  thy  mother"  the  catechism  prescribes  honor  to 
the  sovereign,  the  country,  spiritual  fathers,  all  per- 
sons in  authority,  and  of  these  last  gives  an  enumer- 
ation in  three  pages,  including  college  authorities, 
civil,  judicial,  and  military  authorities,  and  owners 
of  serfs,  with  instructions  as  to  the  manner  of  honor- 
ing each  of  these  classes  (pp.  116-119).  My  cita- 
tions are  taken  from  the  sixty-fourth  edition  of  the 
catechism,  dated  1880.  Twenty  years  have  passed 
since  the  abolition  of  serfdom,  and  no  one  has  taken 
the  trouble  to  strike  out  the  phrase  which,  in  con- 
nection with   the   commandment  of  God  to   honor 


MY  RELIGION.  215 

parents,  was  introduced  into  the  catechism  to  sustain 
and  justify  slavery. 

With  regard  to  the  sixth  commandment,  "  Tliou 
shalt  not  Idll"  the  instructions  of  the  catechism  are 
from  the  first  in  favor  of  murder. 

"  Question.  — What  does  the  sixth  commandment 
forbid? 

"  Answer.  — It  forbids  manslaughter,  to  take  the 
life  of  one's  neighbor  in  any  manner  whatever. 

"  Question.  —  Is  all  manslaughter  a  transgression 
of  the  law? 

'-'-Answer.  —  Manslaughter  is  not  a  transgression 
of  the  law  when  life  is  taken  in  pursuance  of  its 
mandate.     For  example  : 

"  1st.  When  a  criminal  condemned  in  justice  is 
punished  by  death. 

"  2d.  When  we  kill  in  war  for  the  sovereign  and 
our  country." 

The  italics  are  in  the  original.  Further  on  we 
read  :  — 

"  Question.  —  With  regard  to  manslaughter,  when 
is  the  law  transgressed? 

'-'Answer. — When  any  one  conceals  a  murderer 
or  sets  him  at  liberty  "  (sic). 

All  this  is  printed  in  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
copies,  and  under  the  name  of  Christian  doctrine  is 
taught  by  compulsion  to  every  Russian,  who  is 
obliged  to  receive  it  under  penalty  of  castigation. 
This  is  taught  to  all  the  Russian  people.  It  is 
taught  to  the  innocent  children, — to  the  children 
whom  Jesus  commanded  to  be  brought  to  him  as 


216  MY  RELIGION. 

belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  to  the  children 
whom  we  must  resemble,  in  ignorance  of  false  doc- 
trines, to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  to  the 
children  whom  Jesus  tried  to  protect  in  proclaiming 
woe  on  Him  who  should  cause  one  of  the  little  ones 
to  stumble  !  And  the  little  children  are  obliged  to 
learn  all  this,  and  are  told  that  it  is  the  only  and 
sacred  law  of  God.  These  are  not  proclamations 
sent  out  clandestinely,  whose  authors  are  punished 
with  penal  servitude  ;  they  are  proclamations  which 
inflict  the  punishment  of  penal  servitude  upon  all 
those  who  do  not  agree  with  the  doctrines  they 
inculcate. 

As  I  write  these  lines,  I  experience  a  feeling  of 
insecurity,  simply  because  I  have  allowed  myself  to 
sny  that  men  cannot  render  void  the  fundamental 
law  of  God  inscribed  in  all  the  codes  and  in  all 
hearts,  by  such  words  as  these  :  — 

"  Manslaughter  is  not  a  transgression  of  the  law 
when  life  is  taken  in  pursuance  of  its  mandate.  .  .  . 
when  we  kill  in»  war  for  our  sovereign  and  our 
country." 

I  tremble  because  I  have  allowed  myself  to  say 
that  such  things  should  not  be  taught  to  children. 

It  was  against  such  teachings  as  these  that  Jesus 
warned  men  when  he  said  :  — 

"Look,  therefore,  whether  the  light  that  is  in  thee 
be  not  darkness."  (Luke  xi.  35.) 

The  light  that  is  in  us  has  become  darkness ;  and 
the  darkness  of  our  lives  is  full  of  terror. 

'*  Woe   unto   you,  scribes   and   Pharisees,    hypo- 


MY  RELIGION.  217 

crites !  because  ye  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against 
men :  for  ye  enter  not  in  yourselves,  neither  suffer  ye 
them  that  are  entering  in  to  enter.  Woe  unto  you, 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  devour 
widows'  houses,  even  while  for  a  pretence  ye  make 
long  prayers:  therefore  ye  shall  receive  greater  con- 
demnation. Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
hypocrites  I  for  ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte;  and  when  he  is  become  so,  ye  make  him 
twofold  more  a  son  of  hell  than  yourselves.  Woe 
unto  you,  ye  blind  guides.  .  .  . 

"  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypo- 
crites! for  ye  build  the  sepulchres  of  the  prophets,  and 
garnish  the  tombs  of  the  righteous,  and  say,  If  we  had 
been  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  we  should  not  have 
been  partakers  with  them  in  the  blood  of  the  prophets. 
Wherefore  ye  witness  to  yourselves,  that  ye  are  sons 
of  them  that  slew  the  prophets.  Fill  ye  up,  then,  the 
measure  of  your  fathers.  .  .  .  I  send  unto  you  proph- 
ets, and  wise  men,  and  scribes:  some  of  them  shall  ye 
kill  and  crucify ;  and  some  of  them  shall  ye  scourge 
in  your  synagogues,  and  persecute  from  city  to  city: 
that  upon  you  may  come  all  the  righteous  blood  shed 
on  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of  Abel.  .  .  . 

"Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto 
men ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit  shall  not 
be  forgiven." 

Of  a  truth  we  might  say  that  all  this  was  written 
but  yesterday,  not  against  men  who  no  longer  com- 
pass sea  and  land  to  blaspheme  against  the  Spirit, 
or  to  convert  men  to  a  religion  that  renders  its  pros- 


218  MY  RELIGION. 

elytes  worse  than  they  were  before,  but  against  men 
who  deliberately  force  people  to  embrace  their  relig- 
ion, and  persecute  and  bring  to  death  all  the 
prophets  and  the  righteous  who  seek  to  reveal  their 
falsehoods  to  mankind.  I  became  convinced  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  although  bearing  the 
name  of  "  Christian,"  is  one  with  the  darkness 
against  which  Jesus  struggled,  and  against  which  he 
commanded  his  disciples  to  strive. 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus,  like  all  religious  doctrines, 
is  regarded  in  two  ways,  —  first,  as  a  moral  and 
ethical  system  which  teaches  men  how  they  should 
live  as  individuals,  and  in  relation  to  each  other ; 
second,  as  a  metaphysical  theory  which  explains 
why  men  should  live  in  a  given  manner  and  not 
otherwise.  One  necessitates  the  other.  Man  should 
live  in  this  manner  because  such  is  his  destiny  ;  or, 
man's  destiny  is  this  way,  and  consequently  he  should 
follow  it.  These  two  methods  of  doctrinal  expres- 
sion are  common  to  all  the  religions  of  the  world,  to 
the  religion  of  the  Brahmins,  to  that  of  Confucius, 
to  that  of  Buddha,  to  that  of  Moses,  and  to  that  of 
the  Christ.  But,  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  as  with  regard  to  all  other  doctrines,  men 
wander  from  its  precepts,  and  they  always  find  some 
one  to  justify  their  deviations.  Those  who,  as  Jesus 
said,  sit  in  Moses'  seat,  explain  the  metaphysical 
theory  in  such  a  way  that  the  ethical  prescriptions 
of  the  doctrine  cease  to  be  regarded  as  obligator}-, 
and  are  replaced  by  external  forms  of  worship,  by 
ceremonial.     This  is  a  condition  common  to  all  re- 


MY  RELIGION.  219 

ligions,  but,  to  me,  it  seems  that  it  never  has  been 
manifested  with  so  much  pomp  as  in  connection  with 
Christianit}',  —  and  for  two  reasons  :  first,  because 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  the  most  elevated  of  all  doc- 
trines (the  most  elevated  because  the  metaphysical 
and  ethical  portions  are  so  closeh'  united  that  one 
cannot  be  separated  from  the  other  without  destroy- 
ing the  vitality  of  the  whole)  ;  second,  because  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  is  in  itself  a  protest  against  all 
forms,  a  negation  not  only  of  Jewish  ceremonial, 
but  of  all  exterior  rites  of  worship.  Therefore,  the 
arbitrary  separation  of  the  metaphysical  and  ethical 
aspects  of  Christianity  entirely  disfigures  the  doc- 
trine, and  deprives  it  of  every  sort  of  meaning.  The 
separation  began  with  the  preaching  of  Paul,  who 
knew  but  imperfectly  the  ethical  doctrine  set  forth  in 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  who  preached  a  meta- 
physico-cabalistic  theory  entirely  foreign  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  ;  and  this  theory  was  perfected  under 
Constantine,  when  the  existing  pagan  social  organiza- 
tion was  proclaimed  Christian  simply  by  covering  it 
with  the  mantle  of  Christianity.  After  Constantine, 
that  arch-pagan,  whom  the  Church  in  spite  of  all  his 
crimes  and  vices  admits  to  the  category  of  the 
saints,  after  Constantine  began  the  domination  of 
the  councils,  and  the  centre  of  gravity  of  Christian- 
ity was  permanently  displaced  till  only  the  meta- 
physical portion  was  left  in  view.  And  this  meta- 
physical theory  with  its  accompanying  ceremonial 
deviated  more  and  more  from  its  true  and  primitive 
meaning,  until  it  has  reached  its  present  stage  of 


220  MY  RELIGION. 

development,  as  a  doctrine  which  explains  the  mys- 
teries of  a  celestial  life  beyond  the  comprehension  of 
human  reason,  and,  with  all  its  complicated  formulas, 
gives  no  religious  guidance  whatever  with  regard  to 
the  regulation  of  this  earthly  life. 

All  religions,  with  the  exception  of  the  religion  of 
the  Christian  Church,  demand  from  their  adherents 
aside  from  forms  and  ceremonies,  the  practice  of 
certain  actions  called  good,  and  abstinence  from 
certain  actions  that  are  called  bad.  The  Jewish 
religion  prescribed  circumcision,  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath,  the  giving  of  alms,  the  feast  of  the 
Passover.  Mohammedanism  prescribes  circumcision, 
prayer  five  times  a  day,  the  giving  of  tithes  to  the 
poor,  pilgrimage  to  the  tomb  of  the  Prophet,  and 
many  other  things.  It  is  the  same  with  all  other 
religions.  Whether  these  prescriptions  are  good  or 
bad,  they  are  prescriptions  which  exact  the  perform- 
ance of  certain  actions.  Pseudo-Christianity  alone 
prescribes  nothing.  There  is  nothing  that  a 
Christian  is  obliged  to  observe  except  fasts  and 
prayers,  which  the  Church  itself  does  not  recognize 
as  obligatory.  All  that  is  necessary  to  the  pseudo- 
Christian  is  the  sacrament.  But  the  sacrament  is 
not  fulfilled  by  the  believer ;  it  is  administered  to 
him  by  others.  The  pseudo-Christian  is  obliged  to 
do  nothing  or  to  abstain  from  nothing  for  his  own 
salvation,  since  the  Church  administers  to  him 
everything  of  which  he  has  need.  The  Church 
baptizes  him,  anoints  him,  gives  him  the  eucha- 
rist,    confesses   him,   even    after   he  has  lost   con- 


MY  RELIGION.  221 

seiousness,  administers  extreme  unction  to  him,  and 
prays  for  him,  —  and  he  is  saved.  From  the  time 
of  Constantiue  the  Christian  Church  has  prescribed 
no  religious  duties  to  its  adherents.  It  has  never 
required  that  they  should  abstain  from  anything. 
The  Christian  Church  has  recognized  and  sanctioned 
divorce,  slavery,  tribunals,  all  earthly  powers,  the 
death  penalty,  and  war ;  it  has  exacted  nothing 
except  a  renunciation  of  a  purpose  to  do  evil  on  the 
occasion  of  baptism,  and  this  only  in  its  early  days  : 
later  on,  when  infant  baptism  was  introduced,  even 
this  requirement  was  no  longer  observed. 

The  Church  confesses  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  in 
theory,  but  denies  it  in  practice.  Instead  of  guiding 
the  life  of  the  world,  the  Church,  through  affection 
for  the  world,  expounds  the  metaphysical  doctrine 
of  Jesus  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  derive  from  it  any 
obligation  as  to  the  conduct  of  life,  any  necessity 
for  men  to  live  differently  from  the  way  in  which 
they  have  been  living.  The.  Church  has  surrendered 
to  the  world,  and  simply  follows  in  the  train  of  its 
victor.  The  world  does  as  it  pleases,  and  leaves  to 
the  Church  the  task  of  justifying  its  actions  with 
explanations  as  to  the  meaning  of  life.  The  world 
organizes  an  existence  in  absolute  opposition  to  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  and  the  Church  endeavors  to 
demonstrate  that  men  who  live  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  really  live  in  accordance  with  that 
doctrine.  The  final  result  is  that  the  world  lives  a 
worse  than  pagan  existence,  and  the  Church  not 
only  approves,  but  maintains  that  this  existence  is 
in  exact  conformity  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 


222  MY  RELIGION. 

But  a  time  comes  when  the  light  of  the  true  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  shines  forth  from  the  Gospels,  not- 
withstanding the  guilty  efforts  of  the  Church  to 
conceal  it  from  men's  eyes,  as,  for  instance,  in  pro- 
hibiting the  translation  of  the  Bible  ;  there  comes  a 
time  when  the  light  reaches  the  people,  even  through 
the  medium  of  sectarians  and  free-thinkers,  and  the 
falsity  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  shown  so 
clearly  that  men  begin  to  transform  the  method  of 
living  that  the  Church  has  justified. 

Thus  men  of  their  own  accord,  and  in  opposition 
to  the  sanction  of  the  Church,  have  abolished  slavery, 
abolished  the  divine  right  of  emperors  and  popes, 
and  are  now  proceeding  to  abolish  property  and  the 
State.  And  the  Church  cannot  forbid  such  action 
because  the  abolition  of  these  iniquities  is  in  con- 
formity to  the  Christian  doctrine,  that  the  Church 
preaches  after  having  falsified. 

And  in  this  way  the  conduct  of  human  life  is  freed 
from  the  control  of  the  Church,  and  subjected  to  an 
entirely  different  authority.  The  Church  retains  its 
dogmas,  but  what  are  its  dogmas  worth?  A  meta- 
physical explanation  can  be  of  use  only  when  there 
is  a  doctrine  of  life  which  it  serves  to  make  mani- 
fest. But  the  Church  possesses  only  the  explana- 
tion of  an  organization  which  it  once  sanctioned,  and 
which  no  longer  exists.  The  Church  has  nothing  left 
but  temples  and  shrines  and  canonicals  and  vest- 
ments and  words. 

For  eighteen  centuries  the  Church  has  hidden  the 
light  of  Christianity  behind  its  forms  and  ceremo- 


MY  RELIGION.  223 

nials,  and  by  this  same  light  it  is  put  to  shame. 
The  world,  with  an  organization  sanctioned  by  the 
Church,  has  rejected  the  Church  in  the  name  of  the 
very  principles  of  Christianity  that  the  Church  has 
professed.  The  separation  between  the  two  is  com- 
plete and  cannot  be  concealed.  Everything  that 
truly  lives  in  the  world  of  Europe  to-day  (every- 
thing not  cold  and  dumb  in  hateful  isolation), — 
everything  that  is  living,  is  detached  from  the  Church, 
from  all  churches,  and  has  an  existence  independent 
of  the  Church.  Let  it  not  be  said  that  this  is  true 
only  of  the  decayed  civilizations  of  Western  Europe. 
Russia,  with  its  millions  of  civilized  and  uncivilized 
Christian  rationalists,  who  have  rejected  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church,  proves  incontestably  that  as  regards 
emancipation  from  the  yoke  of  the  Church,  she  is, 
thanks  be  to  God,  in  a  worse  condition  of  decay 
than  the  rest  of  Europe. 

All  that  lives  is  independent  of  the  Church.  The 
power  of  the  State  is  based  upon  tradition,  upon 
science,  upon  popular  suffrage,  upon  brute  force, 
upon  everything  except  upon  the  Church.  Wars, 
the  relation  of  State  with  State,  are  governed  by 
principles  of  nationality,  of  the.  balance  of  power, 
but  not  by  the  Church.  The  institutions  established 
by  the  State  frankly  ignore  the  Church.  The  idea 
that  the  Church  can,  in  these  times,  serve  as  a  basis 
for  justice  or  the  conservation  of  property,  is  simply 
absurd.  Science  not  only  does  not  sustain  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  but  is,  in  its  development, 
entirely  hostile  to  the  Church.    Art,  formerly  entirely 


224  MY  RELIGION. 

devoted  to  the  service  of  the  Church,  has  wholly 
forsaken  the  Church.  It  is  little  to  say  that  human 
life  is  now  entirely  emancipated  from  the  Church  ; 
it  has  now,  with  regard  to  the  Church,  only  con- 
tempt when  the  Church  does  not  interfere  with 
human  affairs,  and  hatred  when  the  Church  seeks  to 
re-assert  its  ancient  privileges.  The  Church  is  still 
permitted  a  formal  existence  simply  because  men 
dread  to  shatter  the  chalice  that  once  contained  the 
water  of  life.  In  this  way  only  can  we  account,  in 
our  age,  for  the  existence  of  Catholicism,  of  Ortho- 
doxy, and  of  the  different  Protestant  churches. 

All  these  churches  —  Catholic,  Orthodox,  Protes- 
tant —  are  like  so  many  sentinels  still  keeping 
careful  watch  before  the  prison  doors,  although  the 
prisoners  have  long  been  at  liberty  before  their  eyes, 
and  even  threaten  their  existence.  All  that  actually 
constitutes  life,  that  is,  the  activity  of  humanity 
towards  progress  and  its  own  welfare,  socialism, 
communism,  the  new  politico-economical  theories, 
utilitarianism,  the  liberty  and  equality  of  all  social 
classes,  and  of  men  and  women,  all  the  moral  prin- 
ciples of  humanity,  che  sanctity  of  work,  reason, 
science,  art,  —  all  these  that  lend  an  impulse  to  the 
world's  progress  in  hostility  to  the  Church  are  only 
fragments  of  the  doctrine  which  the  Church  has 
professed,  and  so  carefulh'  endeavored  to  conceal. 
In  these  times,  the  life  of  the  world  is  entirety  inde- 
pendent of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The  Church 
is  left  so  far  behind,  that  men  no  longer  hear  the 
voices  of  those  who  preach  its  doctrines.     This  is 


MY  RELIGION.  225 

easily  to  be  understood  because  the  Church  still 
clings  to  an  organization  of  the  world's  life,  which 
has  been  forsaken,  and  is  rapidly  falling  to  de- 
struction. 

Imagine  a  number  of  men  rowing  a  boat,  a  pilot 
steering.  The  men  rely  upon  the  pilot,  and  the 
pilot  steers  well ;  but  after  a  time  the  good  pilot 
is  replaced  by  another,  who  does  not  steer  at  all. 
The  boat  moves  along  rapidly  and  easily.  At  first 
the  men  do  not  notice  the  negligence  of  the  new 
pilot ;  they  are  only  pleased  to  find  that  the  boat 
goes  along  so  easily.  Then  they  discover  that  the 
new  pilot  is  utterly  useless,  and  they  mock  at  him, 
and  drive  him  from  his  place. 

The  matter  would  not  be  so  serious  if  the  men,  in 
thrusting  aside  the  unskilful  pilot,  did  not  forget  that 
Avithout  a  pilot  they  are  likely  to  take  a  wrong  course. 
But  so  it  is  with  our  Christian  society.  The  Church 
has  lost  its  control ;  we  move  smoothly  onward,  and 
we  are  a  long  way  from  our  point  of  departure. 
Science,  that  especial  pride  of  this  nineteenth  century, 
is  sometimes  alarmed ;  but  that  is  because  of  the 
absence  of  a  pilot.  We  are  moving  onward,  but  to 
what  goal?  We  organize  our  life  without  in  the 
least  knowing  why,  or  to  what  end.  But  we  can  no 
longer1^  contented  to  live  without  knowing  why,  any 
more  than  we  can  navigate  a  boat  without  knowing 
the  course  that  we  are  following. 

If  men  could  do  nothing  of  themselves,  if  they  were 
not  responsible  for  their  condition,  they  might  very 
reasonably  reply  to  the  question,  "  Why  are  you  in 


226  MY  RELIGION. 

this  situation  ?"  —  "  We  do  not  know  ;  but  here  we 
are,  and  submit."  But  men  are  the  builders  of  their 
own  destiny,  and  more  especially  of  the  destiny  of 
their  children  ;  and  so  when  we  ask,  "  Why  do  }ou 
bring  together  millions  of  troops,  and  why  do  you 
make  soldiers  of  yourselves,  and  mangle  and  murder 
one  another?  Why  have  you  expended,  and  why  do 
you  still  expend,  an  enormous  sum  of  human  energy 
in  the  construction  of  useless  and  unhealthf  ul  cities  ? 
Why  do  you  organize  ridiculous  tribunals,  and  send 
people  whom  you  consider  as  criminals  from  France 
to  Cayenne,  from  Russia  to  Siberia,  from  England 
to  Australia,  when  you  know  the  hopeless  folly  of 
it?  Why  do  you  abandon  agriculture,  which  you 
love,  for  work  in  factories  and  mills,  which  you  de- 
spise ?  Why  do  you  bring  up  your  children  in  a  way 
that  will  force  them  to  lead  an  existence  which  you 
find  worthless  ?  Why  do  you  do  this  ?  "  To  all  these 
questions  men  feel  obliged  to  make  some  reply. 

If  this  existence  were  an  agreeable  one,  and  men 
took  pleasure  in  it,  even  then  men  would  try  to  ex- 
plain why  they  continued  to  live  under  such  condi- 
tions. But  all  these  things  are  terribly  difficult ;  they 
are  endured  with  murmuring  and  painful  struggles, 
and  men  cannot  refrain  from  reflecting  upon  the  mo- 
tive which  impels  them  to  such  a  course.  They 
must  cease  to  maintain  the  accepted  organization  of 
existence,  or  they  must  explain  why  they  give  it 
their  support.  And  so  men  never  have  allowed  this 
question  to  pass  unanswered.  We  find  in  all  ages 
some  attempt  at  a  response.     The  Jew  lived  as  he 


my  religion:  -  227 

lived,  that  is,  made  war,  put  criminals  to  death, 
built  the  Temple,  organized  his  entire  existence  in 
one  way  and  not  another,  because,  as  he  was  con- 
vinced, he  thereby  followed  the  laws  which  God  him- 
self had  promulgated.  We  may  say  the  same  of  the 
Hindu,  the  Chinamau,  the  Roman,  and  the  Moham- 
medan. A  similar  response  was  given  by  the 
Christian  a  century  ago,  and  is  given  by  the  great 
mass  of  Christians  now. 

A  centur}'  ago,  and  among  the  ignorant  now,  the 
nominal  Christian  makes  this  reply  :  "  Compulsoiy 
militar}*  service,  wars,  tribunals,  and  the  death  pen- 
alty, all  exist  in  obedience  to  the  law  of  God  trans- 
mitted to  us  by  the  Church.  This  is  a  fallen  world. 
All  the  evil  that  exists,  exists  by  God's  will,  as  a 
punishment  for  the  sins  of  men.  For  this  reason 
we  can  do  nothing  to  palliate  evil.  We  can  only 
save  our  own  souls  by  faith,  by  the  sacraments,  by 
prayers,  and  by  submission  to  the  will  of  God  as 
transmitted  by  the  Church.  The  Church  teaches  us 
that  all  Christians  should  unhesitatingly  obey  their 
rulers,  who  are  the  Lord's  anointed,  and  obey  also 
persons  placed  in  authority  by  rulers;  that  they 
ought  to  defend  their  property  and  that  of  others  by 
force,  wage  war,  inflict  the  death  penalty,  and  in  all 
things  submit  to  the  authorities,  who  command  by 
the  will  of  God." 

Whatever  we  ma}*  think  of  the  reasonableness  of 
these  explanations,  they  once  sufficed  for  a  believing 
Christian,  as  similar  explanations  satisfied  a  Jew  or 
a  Mohammedan,  and  men  were  not  obliged  to  re- 


228  MY  RELIGION. 

nounce  all  reason  for  living  according  to  a  law 
which  they  recognized  as  divine.  But  in  this  time 
only  the  most  ignorant  people  have  faith  in  an}*  such 
explanations,  and  the  number  of  these  diminishes 
every  day  and  every  hour.  It  is  impossible  to  check 
this  tendency.  Men  irresistibly  follow  those  who 
lead  the  way,  and  sooner  or  later  must  pass  over  the 
same  ground  as  the  advance  guard.  The  advance 
guard  is  now  in  a  critical  position  ;  those  who  com- 
pose it  organize  life  to  suit  themselves,  prepare  the 
same  conditions  for  those  who  are  to  follow,  and  ab- 
solutely have  not  the  slightest  idea  of  why  they  do 
so.  No  civilized  man  in  the  vanguard  of  progress 
is  able  to  give  any  reply  now  to  the  direct  questions, 
"  Why  do  you  lead  the  life  that  you  do  lead?  Why 
do  you  establish  the  conditions  that  you  do  estab- 
lish?" I  have  propounded  these  questions  to  hun- 
dreds of  people,  and  never  have  got  from  them  a 
direct  reply.  Instead  of  a  direct  reply  to  the  direct 
question,  I  have  received  in  return  a  response  to  a 
question  that  I  had  not  asked. 

When  we  ask  a  Catholic,  or  Protestant,  or  Ortho- 
dox believer  why  he  leads  an  existence  contrary  to 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  instead  of  making  a  direct 
response  he  begins  to  speak  of  the  melanchoh'  state 
of  scepticism  characteristic  of  this  generation,  of 
evil-minded  persons  who  spread  doubt  broadcast 
among  the  masses,  of  the  importance  of  the  future 
of  the  existing  Church.  But  he  will  not  tell  you  why 
he  does  not  act  in  conformity  to  the  commands  of 
the  religion  that  he  professes.     Instead  of  speaking 


MY  RELIGION.  229 

of  his  own  condition,  he  will  talk  to  you  about  the 
condition  of  humanity  in  general,  and  of  that  of  the 
Church,  as  if  his  own  life  were  not  of  the  slightest 
significance,  and  his  sole  preoccupations  were  the 
salvation  of  humanity,  and  of  what  he  calls  the 
Church. 

A  philosopher  of  whatever  school  he  may  be, 
whether  an  idealist  or  a  spiritualist,  a  pessimist  or  a 
positivist,  if  we  ask  of  him  why  he  lives  as  he  lives, 
that  is  to  say,  in  disaccord  with  his  philosophical 
doctrine,  will  begin  at  once  to  talk  about  the  progress 
of  humanity  and  about  the  historical  law  of  this 
progress  which  he  has  discovered,  and  in  virtue  of 
which  humanity  gravitates  toward  righteousness. 
But  he  never  will  make  any  direct  reply  to  the  ques- 
tion why  he  himself,  on  his  own  account,  does  not 
live  in  harmony  with  what  he  recognizes  as  the 
dictates  of  reason.  It  would  seem  as  if  the  philoso- 
pher were  as  preoccupied  as  the  believer,  not  with 
his  personal  life,  but  with  observing  the  effect  of 
general  laws  upon  the  development  of  humanity. 

The  "  average  "  man  (that  is,  one  of  the  immense 
majorit3T  of  civilized  people  who  are  half  sceptics  and 
half  believers,  and  who  all,  without  exception,  de- 
plore existence,  condemn  its  organization,  and  pre- 
dict universal  destruction), — the  average  man, 
when  we  ask  him  why  he  continues  to  lead  a  life 
that  he  condemns,  without  making  any  effort  towards 
its  amelioration,  makes  no  direct  reply,  but  begins 
at  once  to  talk  about  things  in  general,  about  justice, 
about  the  State,  about  commerce,  about  civilization. 


230  MY  RELIGION. 

If  he  be  a  member  of  the  police  or  a  prosecuting 
attorney,  he  asks,  "  And  what  would  become  of  the 
State,  if  I,  to  ameliorate  my  existence,  were  to  cease 
to  serve  it?  "  "  What  would  become  of  commerce  ?  " 
is  his  demand  if  he  be  a  merchant;  "What  of 
civilization,  if  I  cease  to  work  for  it,  and  seek  only 
to  better  my  own  condition  ?  "  will  be  the  objection 
of  another.  His  response  always  will  be  in  this 
form,  as  if  the  duty  of  his  life  were  not  to  seek  the 
good  conformable  to  his  nature,  but  to  serve  the 
State,  or  commerce,  or  civilization. 

The  average  man  replies  in  just  the  same  manner 
as  does  the  believer  or  the  philosopher.  Instead  of 
making  the  question  a  personal  one,  he  glides  at 
once  to  generalities.  This  subterfuge  is  employed 
simply  because  the  believer  and  the  philosopher,  and 
the  average  man  have  no  positive  doctrine  concern- 
ing existence,  and  cannot,  therefore,  reply  to  the 
personal  question,  ' '  What  of  your  own  life  ?  "  They 
are  disgusted  and  humiliated  at  not  possessing  the 
slightest  trace  of  a  doctrine  with  regard  to  life,  for 
no  one  can  live  in  peace  without  some  understanding 
of  what  life  really  means.  But  nowadays  only 
Christians  cling  to  a  fantastic  and  worn-out  creed  as 
an  explanation  of  why  life  is  as  it  is,  and  is  not 
otherwise.  Only  Christians  give  the  name  of  relig- 
ion to  a  system  which  is  not  of  the  least  use  to  any 
one.  Only  among  Christians  is  life  separated  from 
any  or  all  doctrine,  and  left  without  any  definition 
whatever.  Moreover,  science,  like  tradition,  has 
formulated  from  the  fortuitous  and  abnormal  con- 


MY  RELIGION.  231 

dition  of  humanity  a  general  law.  Learned  men, 
such  as  Tiele  and  Spencer,  treat  religion  as  a  serious 
matter,  understanding  by  religion  the  metaphysical 
doctrine  of  the  universal  principle,  without  suspect- 
ing that  they  have  lost  sight  of  religion  as  a  whole 
by  confining  their  attention  entirely  to  one  of  its 
phases. 

From  all  this  we  get  very  extraordinary  results. 
We  see  learned  and  intelligent  men  artlessly  believ- 
ing that  they  are  emancipated  from  all  religion  simply 
because  they  reject  the  metaphysical  explanation  of 
the  universal  principle  which  satisfied  a  former 
generation.  It  does  not  occur  to  them  that  men 
cannot  live  without  some  theory  of  existence  ;  that 
every  human  being  lives  according  to  some  princi- 
ple, and  that  this  principle  by  which  he  governs  his 
life  is  his  religion.  The  people  of  whom  we  have 
been  speaking  are  persuaded  that  they  have  reason- 
able convictions,  but  that  the}'  have  no  religion. 
Nevertheless,  however  serious  their  asseverations, 
the}-  have  a  religion  from  the  moment  that  they 
undertake  to  govern  their  actions  by  reason,  for  a 
reasonable  act  is  determined  by  some  sort  of  faith. 
Now  their  faith  is  in  what  they  are  told  to  do.  The 
faith  of  those  who  deny  religion  is  in  a  religion  of 
obedience  to  the  will  of  the  ruling  majority  ;  in  a 
word,  submission  to  established  authority. 

We  may  live  a  purely  animal  life  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  world,  without  recognizing  any  con- 
trolling motive  more  binding  than  the  rules  of  estab- 
lished authority.     But  he  who  lives  this  way  cannot 


232  MY  RELIGION. 

affirm  that  he  lives  a  reasonable  life.  Before  affirm- 
ing that  we  live  a  reasonable  life,  we  must  determine 
what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  life  which  we  regard  as 
reasonable.  Alas  !  wretched  men  that  we  are,  we 
possess  not  the  semblance  of  any  such  doctrine,  and 
more  than  that,  we  have  lost  all  perception  of  the 
necessity  for  a  reasonable  doctrine  of  life. 

Ask  the  believers  or  sceptics  of  this  age,  what 
doctrine  of  life  they  follow.  They  will  be  obliged 
to  confess  that  they  follow  but  one  doctrine,  the 
doctrine  based  upon  laws  formulated  by  the  judiciary 
or  by  legislative  assemblies,  and  enforced  by  the 
police  —  the  favorite  doctrine  of  most  Europeans. 
The}'  know  that  this  doctrine  does  not  come  from  on 
high,  or  from  prophets,  or  from  sages  ;  the}'  are 
continually  finding  fault  with  the  laws  drawn  up  by 
the  judiciary  or  formulated  by  legislative  assemblies, 
but  nevertheless  they  submit  to  the  police  charged 
with  their  enforcement.  They  submit  without  mur- 
muring to  the  most  terrible  exactions.  The  clerks 
employed  by  the  judiciary  or  the  legislative  assem- 
blies decree  by  statute  that  every  young  man  must 
be  ready  to  take  up  arms,  to  kill  others,  and  to  die 
himself,  and  that  all  parents  who  have  adult  sons 
must  favor  obedience  to  this  law  which  was  drawn 
up  yesterday  by  a  mercenary  official,  and  may  be 
revoked  to-morrow. 

We  have  lost  sight  of  the  idea  that  a  law  may  be 
in  itself  reasonable,  and  binding  upon  every  one  in 
spirit  as  well  as  in  letter.  The  Hebrews  possessed 
a  law  which  regulated  life,  not  by  forced  obedience 


MY  RELIGION.  233 

to  its  requirements,  but  by  appealing  to  the  con- 
science of  each  individual ;  and  the  existence  of 
this  law  is  considered  as  an  exceptional  attribute  of 
the  Hebrew  people.  That  the  Hebrews  should  have 
been  willing  to  obey  only  what  they  recognized  by 
spiritual  perception  as  the  incontestable  truth  direct 
from  God  is  considered  a  remarkable  national  trait. 
But  it  appears  that  the  natural  and  normal  state  of 
civilized  men  is  to  obey  what  to  their  own  knowl- 
edge is  decreed  by  despicable  officials  and  enforced 
by  the  co-operation  of  armed  police. 

The  distinctive  trait  of  civilized  man  is  to  obe}^ 
what  the  majority  of  men  regard  as  iniquitous,  con- 
trary to  conscience.  I  seek  in  vain  in  civilized 
society  as  it  exists  to-day  for  any  clearly  formulated 
moral  bases  of  life.  There  are  none.  No  percep- 
tion of  their  necessity  exists.  On  the  contrar}-,  we 
find  the  extraordinary  conviction  that  they  are 
superfluous  ;  that  religion  is  nothing  more  than  a 
few  words  about  God  and  a  future  life,  and  a  few 
ceremonies  very  useful  for  the  salvation  of  the  soul 
according  to  some,  and  good  for  nothing  according 
to  others  ;  but  that  life  happens  of  itself  and  has  no 
need  of  any  fundamental  rule,  and  that  we  have 
only  to  do  what  we  are  told  to  do. 

The  two  substantial  sources  of  faith,  the  doctrine 
that  governs  life,  and  the  explanation  of  the  mean- 
ing of  life,  are  regarded  as  of  very  unequal  value. 
The  first  is  considered  as  of  very  little  importance, 
and  as  having  no  relation  to  faith  whatever ;  the 
second,   as  the   explanation  of   a  bygone  state  of 


234  MY  RELIGION. 

existence,  or  as  made  up  of  speculations  concerning 
the  historical  development  of  life,  is  considered  as 
of  great  significance.  As  to  all  that  constitutes  the 
life  of  man  expressed  in  action,  the  members  of  our 
modern  society  depend  willingly  for  guidance  upon 
people  who,  like  themselves,  know  not  why  they 
direct  their  fellows  to  live  in  one  way  and  not  in 
another.  This  disposition  holds  good  whether  the 
question  at  issue  is  to  decide  whether  to  kill  or  not 
to  kill,  to  judge  or  not  to  judge,  to  bring  up  children 
in  this  way  or  in  that.  And  men  look  upon  an 
existence  like  this  as  reasonable,  and  have  no  feel- 
ing of  shame ! 

The  explanations  of  the  Church  which  pass  for 
faith,  and  the  true  faith  of  our  generation,  which  is 
in  obedience  to  social  laws  and  the  laws  of  the 
State,  have  reached  a  stage  of  sharp  antagonism. 
The  majority  of  civilized  people  have  nothing  to 
regulate  life  but  faith  in  the  police.  This  condition 
would  be  unbearable  if  it  were  universal.  Fortu- 
nately there  is  a  remnant,  made  up  of  the  noblest 
minds  of  the  age,  who  are  not  contented  with  this 
religion,  but  have  an  entirely  different  faith  with 
regard  to  what  the  life  of  man  ought  to  be.  These 
men  are  looked  upon  as  the  most  malevolent,  the 
most  dangerous,  and  generally  as  the  most  unbe- 
lieving of  all  human  beings,  and  yet  they  are  the 
only  men  of  our  time  believing  in  the  Gospel  doc- 
trine, if  not  as  a  whole,  at  least  in  part.  These 
people,  as  a  general  thing,  know  little  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  ;  they  do  not  understand  it,  and,  like 


MY  RELIGION.  235 

their  adversaries,  they  refuse  to  accept  the  leading 
principle  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  which  is  to  resist 
not  evil ;  often  they  have  nothing  but  a  hatred  for 
the  name  of  Jesus  ;  but  their  whole  faith  with  regard 
to  what  life  ought  to  be  is  unconsciously  based  upon 
the  humane  and  eternal  truths  comprised  in  the 
Christian  doctrine.  This  remnant,  in  spite  of  cal- 
umny and  persecution,  are  the  only  ones  who  do  not 
tamely  submit  to  the  orders  of  the  first  comer. 
Consequently  they  are  the  only  ones  in  these  days 
who  live  a  reasonable  and  not  an  animal  life,  the 
only  ones  who  have  faith. 

The  connecting  link  between  the  world  and  the 
Church,  although  carefully  cherished  by  the  Church, 
becomes  more  and  more  attenuated.  To-day  it  is 
little  more  than  a  hindrance.  The  union  between 
the  Church  and  the  world  has  no  longer  any  justifi- 
cation. The  mysterious  process  of  maturation  is 
going  on  before  our  eyes.  The  connecting  bond 
will  soon  be  severed,  and  the  vital  social  organism 
will  begin  to  exercise  its  functions  as  a  wholly 
independent  existence.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
with  its  dogmas,  its  councils,  and  its  hierarchy,  is 
manifestly  united  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  The 
connecting  link  is  as  perceptible  as  the  cord  which 
binds  the  newly-born  child  to  its  mother ;  but  as  the 
umbilical  cord  and  the  placenta  become  after  par- 
turition useless  pieces  of  flesh,  which  are  carefully 
buried  out  of  regard  for  what  they  once  nourished, 
so  the  Church  has  become  a  useless  organism,  to  be 
preserved,  if  at  all,  in  some  museum  of  curiosities 


236  MY  RELIGION. 

out  of  regard  for  what  it  has  once  been.  As  soon 
as  respiration  and  circulation  are  established,  the 
former  source  of  nutrition  becomes  a  hindrance  to 
life.  Vain  and  foolish  would  it  be  to  attempt  to 
retain  the  bond,  and  to  force  the  child  that  has 
come  into  the  light  of  day  to  receive  its  nourish- 
ment by  a  pre-natal  process.  But  the  deliverance 
of  the  child  from  the  maternal  tie  does  not  ensure 
life.  The  life  of  the  newly  born  depends  upon 
another  bond  of  union  which  is  established  between 
it  and  its  mother  that  its  nourishment  may  be  main- 
tained. 

And  so  it  must  be  with  our  Christian  world  of 
to-day.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  has  brought  the 
world  into  the  light.  The  Church,  one  of  the 
organs  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  has  fulfilled  its 
mission  and  is  now  useless.  The  world  cannot  be 
bound  to  the  Church  ;  but  the  deliverance  of  the 
world  from  the  Church  will  not  ensure  life.  Life 
will  begin  when  the  world  perceives  its  own  weak- 
ness and  the  necessity  for  a  different  source  of 
strength.  The  Christian  world  feels  this  necessity  : 
it  proclaims  its  helplessness,  it  feels  the  impossi- 
bility of  depending  upon  its  former  means  of  nour- 
ishment, the  inadequacy  of  any  other  form  of  nour- 
ishment except  that  of  the  doctrine  by  which  it  was 
brought  forth.  This  modern  European  world  of 
ours,  apparently  so  sure  of  itself,  so  bold,  so 
decided,  and  within  so  preyed  upon  by  terror  and 
despair,  is  exactty  in  the  situation  of  a  newly  born 
animal :  it  writhes,  it  cries  aloud,  it  is  perplexed,  it 


MY  RELIGION.  237 

knows  not  what  to  do ;  it  feels  that  its  former 
source  of  nourishment  is  withdrawn,  but  it  knows 
not  where  to  seek  for  another.  A  newly  born  lamb 
shakes  its  head,  opens  its  eyes  and  looks  about,  and 
leaps,  and  bounds,  and  would  make  us  think  by  its 
apparently  intelligent  movements  that  it  already  has 
mastered  the  secret  of  living ;  but  of  this  the  poor 
little  creature  knows  nothing.  The  impetuosity  and 
energy  it  displays  were  drawn  from  its  mother 
through  a  medium  of  transmission  that  has  just  been 
broken,  nevermore  to  be  renewed.  The  situation 
of  the  new  comer  is  one  of  delight,  and  at  the  same 
time  is  full  of  peril.  It  is  animated  by  youth  and 
strength,  but  it  is  lost  if  it  cannot  avail  itself  of  the 
nourishment  only  to  be  had  from  its  mother. 

And  so  it  is  with  our  European  world.  What 
complex  activities,  what  energy,  what  intelligence, 
does  it  apparently  possess !  It  would  seem  as  if  all 
its  deeds  were  governed  by  reason.  With  what 
enthusiasm,  what  vigor,  what  youthfulness  do  the 
denizens  of  this  modern  world  manifest  their 
abounding  vitality !  The  arts  and  sciences,  the 
various  industries,  political  and  administrative  de- 
tails, all  are  full  of  life.  But  this  life  is  due  to  in- 
spiration received  through  the  connecting  link  that 
binds  it  to  its  source.  The  Church,  by  transmitting 
the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  has  communicated 
life  to  the  world.  Upon  this  nourishment  the  world 
has  grown  and  developed.  But  the  Church  has  had 
its  day  and  is  now  superfluous. 

The  world  is  possessed  of  a  living  organism  ;  the 


238  MY  RELIGION. 

means  by  which  it  formerly  received  its  nourishment 
has  withered  away,  and  it  has  not  yet  found  an- 
other ;  and  it  seeks  everywhere,  everywhere  but  at 
the  true  source  of  life.  It  still  possesses  the  anima- 
tion derived  from  nourishment  already  received,  and 
it  does  not  yet  understand  that  its  future  nourish- 
ment is  only  to  be  had  from  one  source,  and  by  its 
own  efforts.  The  world  must  now  understand  that 
the  period  of  gestation  is  ended,  and  that  a  new 
process  of  conscious  nutrition  must  henceforth 
maintain  its  life.  Tfie  truth  of  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  once  unconsciously  absorbed  by  humanity 
through  the  organism  of  the  Church,  must  now  be 
consciously  recognized  ;  for  in  the  truth  of  this  doc- 
trine humanity  has  always  obtained  its  vital  force. 
Men  must  lift  up  the  torch  of  truth,  which  has  so 
long  remained  concealed,  and  carry  it  before  them, 
guiding  their  actions  by  its  light. 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus,  as  a  religion  that  governs 
the  actions  of  men  and  explains  to  them  the  mean- 
ing of  life,  is  now  before  the  world  just  as  it  was 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  Formerly  the  world 
had  the  explanations  of  the  Church  which,  in  con- 
cealing the  doctrine,  seemed  in  itself  to  offer  a 
satisfactory  interpretation  of  life  ;  but  now  the  time 
is  come  when  the  Church  has  lost  its  usefulness, 
and  the  world,  having  no  other  means  for  sustaining 
its  true  existence,  can  only  feel  its  helplessness  and 
go  for  aid  directly  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 

Now,  Jesus  first  taught  men  to  believe  in  the 
light,  and  that  the  light  is  within  themselves.    Jesus 


MY  RELIGION.    '  239 

taught  men  to  lift  on  high  the  light  of  reason.  He 
taught  them  to  live,  guiding  their  actions  by  this 
light,  and  to  do  nothing  contrary  to  reason.  It  is 
unreasonable,  it  is  foolish,  to  go  out  to  kill  Turks  or 
Germans  ;  it  is  unreasonable  to  make  use  of  the 
labor  of  others  that  you  and  3-ours  may  be  clothed 
in  the  height  of  fashion  and  maintain  that  mortal 
source  of  ennui,  a  salon  ;  it  is  unreasonable  to  take 
people  already  corrupted  by  idleness  and  depravity 
and  shut  them  up  within  prison  walls,  and  thereb}' 
devote  them  to  an  existence  of  absolute  idleness 
and  depravation  ;  it  is  unreasonable  to  live  in  the 
pestilential  air  of  cities  when  a  purer  atmosphere  is 
within  your  reach ;  it  is  unreasonable  to  base  the 
education  of  your  children  on  the  grammatical  laws 
of  dead  languages;  —  all  this  is  unreasonable,  and 
yet  it  is  to-day  the  life  of  the  European  world, 
which  lives  a  life  of  no  meaning ;  which  acts,  but 
acts  without  a  purpose,  having  no  confidence  in 
reason,  and  existing  in  opposition  to  its  decrees. 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  the  light.  The  light 
shines  forth,  and  the  darkness  cannot  conceal  it. 
Men  cannot  deny  it,  men  cannot  refuse  to  accept  its 
guidance.  They  must  depend  on  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  which  penetrates  among  all  the  errors  with 
which  the  life  of  men  is  surrounded.  Like  the  in- 
sensible ether  filling  universal  space,  enveloping  all 
created  things,  so  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  inevitable 
for  every  man  in  whatever  situation  he  may  be 
found.  Men  cannot  refuse  to  recognize  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  ;    they  may  den}T  the   metaphysical 


240  MY  RELIGION. 

explanation  of  life  which  it  gives  (we  may  deny 
everything) ,  but  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  alone  offers 
rules  for  the  conduct  of  life  without  which  humanity 
has  never  lived,  and  never  will  be  able  to  live ; 
without  which  no  human  being  has  lived  or  can 
live,  if  he  would  live  as  man  should  live,  —  a  rea- 
sonable life.  The  power  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is 
not  in  its  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  life,  but  in 
the  rules  that  it  gives  for  the  conduct  of  life.  The 
metaphysical  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  not  new ;  it  is 
that  eternal  doctrine  of  humanity  inscribed  in  all  the 
hearts  of  men,  and  preached  by  all  the  prophets  of 
all  the  ages.  The  power  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is 
in  the  application  of  this  metaphysical  doctrine  to 
life. 

The  metaphysical  basis  of  the  ancient  doctrine 
of  the  Hebrews,  which  enjoined  love  to  God  and 
men,  is  identical  with  the  metaphysical  basis  of 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  But  the  application  of  this 
doctrine  to  life,  as  expounded  by  Moses,  was  very 
different  from  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  The  He- 
brews, in  applying  the  Mosaic  law  to  life,  were 
obliged  to  fulfil  six  hundred  and  thirteen  command- 
ments, many  of  which  were  absurd  and  cruel,  and 
yet  all  were  based  upon  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  doctrine  of  life,  as  given  by  Jesus  upon 
the  same  metaphysical  basis,  is  expressed  in  five 
reasonable  and  beneficent  commandments,  having 
an  obvious  and  justifiable  meaning,  and  embracing 
within  their  restrictions  the  whole  of  human  life. 
A  Jew,  a  disciple  of  Confucius,  a   Buddhist,  or   a 


MY  RELIGION.  241 

Mohammedan,  who  sincerely  doubts  the  truth  of 
his  own  religion,  cannot  refuse  to  accept  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  ;  much  less,  then,  can  this  doc- 
trine be  rejected  by  the  Christian  world  of  to-day, 
which  is  now  living  without  any  moral  law.  The 
doctrine  of  Jesus  cannot  interfere  in  any  way  with 
the  manner  in  which  men  of  to-day  regard  the 
world ;  it  is,  to  begin  with,  in  harmony  with  their 
metaphysics,  but  it  gives  them  what  they  have  not 
now,  what  is  indispensable  to  their  existence,  and 
what  they  all  seek,  —  it  offers  them  a  way  of  life  ; 
not  an  unknown  way,  but  a  way  already  explored 
and  familiar  to  all. 

Let  us  suppose  that  you  are  a  sincere  Christian, 
it  matters  not  of  what  confession.  You  believe  in  the 
creation  of  the  world,  in  the  Trinity,  in  the  fall  and 
redemption  of  man,  in  the  sacraments,  in  prayer, 
in  the  Church.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  not  opposed 
to  your  dogmatic  belief ,  and  is  absolutely  in  harmony 
with  your  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  universe  ;  and 
it. offers  you  something  that  }7ou  do  not  possess. 
While  you  retain  your  present  religion  you  feel  that 
your  own  life  and  the  life  of  the  world  is  full  of  evil 
that  you  know  not  how  to  remedy.  The  doctrine  of 
Jesus  (which  should  be  binding  upon  you  since  it  is 
the  doctrine  of  your  own  God)  offers  you  simple  and 
practical  rules  which  will  surely  deliver  you,  you 
and  }Tour  fellows,  from  the  evils  with  which  you  are 
tormented. 

Believe,  if  you  will,  in  paradise,  in  hell,  in  the 
pope,  in  the  Church,  in  the  sacraments,  in  the  re- 


242  MY  RELIGION. 

demption ;  pray  according  to  the  dictates  of  your 
faith,  attend  upon  your  devotions,  sing  your  hymns, 
—  but  all  this  will  not  prevent  you  from  practising 
the  five  commandments  given  b}T  Jesus  for  your  wel- 
fare :  Be  not  angry ;  Do  not  commit  adultery ; 
Take  no  oaths  ;  Resist  not  evil ;  Do  not  make  war. 
It  may  happen  that  you  will  break  one  of  these 
rules ;  you  will  perhaps  yield  to  temptation,  and 
violate  one  of  them,  just  as  you  violate  the  rules  of 
your  present  religion,  or  the  articles  of  the  civil 
code,  or  the  laws  of  custom.  In  the  same  wa}r  you 
may,  perhaps,  in  moments  of  temptation,  fail  of 
observing  all  the  commandments  of  Jesus.  But,  in 
that  case,  do  not  calmly  sit  down  as  you  do  now, 
and  so  organize  your  existence  as  to  render  it  a  task 
of  extreme  difficulty  not  to  be" angry,  not  to  commit 
adultery,  not  to  take  oaths,  not  to  resist  evil,  not  to 
make  war ;  organize  rather  an  existence  which  shall 
render  the  doing  of  all  these  things  as  difficult  as  the 
non-performance  of  them  is  now  laborious.  You 
cannot  refuse  to  recognize  the  validity  of  these  rules, 
for  the}*  are  the  commandments  of  the  God  whom 
you  pretend  to  worship. 

Let  us  suppose  that  you  are  an  unbeliever,  a  phi- 
losopher, it  matters  not  of  what  special  school.  You 
affirm  that  the  progress  of  the  world  is  in  accord- 
ance with  a  law  that  you  have  discovered.  The 
doctrine  of  Jesus  does  not  oppose  your  views  ;  it  is 
in  harmony  with  the  law  that  you  have  discovered. 
But,  aside  from  this  law,  in  pursuance  of  which  the 
world  will  in  the  course  of  a  thousand  years  reach  a 


MY  RELIGION.  243 

state  of  felicity,  there  is  still  your  own  personal  life 
to  be  considered.  This  life  you  can  use  by  living  in 
conformity  to  reason,  or  you  can  waste  it  by  living 
in  opposition  to  reason,  and  you  have  now  for  its 
guidance  no  rule  whatever,  except  the  decrees  drawn 
up  by  men  whom  you  do  not  esteem,  and  enforced 
by  the  police.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  offers  you 
rules  which  are  assuredly  in  accord  with  }Tour  law  of 
"  altruism,"  which  is  nothing  but  a  feeble  paraphrase 
of  this  same  doctrine  of  Jesus. 

Let  us  suppose  that  you  are  an  average  man,  half 
sceptic,  half  believer,  one  who  has  no  time  to  ana- 
lyze the  meaning  of  human  life,  and  one  therefore 
who  has  no  determinate  theory  of  existence.  You 
live  as  lives  tho  rest  of  the  world  about  you.  The  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  is  not  at  all  contrary  to  your  condition. 
You  are  incapable  of  reason,  of  verifying  the  truths 
of  the  doctrines  that  are  taught  you  ;  it  is  easier  for 
you  to  do  as  others  do.  But  however  modest  may 
be  your  estimate  of  your  powers  of  reason,  you  know 
that  you  have  within  you  a  judge  that  sometimes  ap- 
proves 3-our  acts  and  sometimes  condemns  them. 
However  modest  your  social  position,  there  are  occa- 
sions when  you  are  bound  to  reflect  and  ask  jour- 
self,  "  Shall  I  follow  the  example  of  the  rest  of  the 
world,  or  shall  I  act  in  accordance  with  my  own 
judgment?  "  It  is  precisely  on  these  occasions  when 
you  are  called  upon  to  solve  some  problem  with  re- 
gard to  the  conduct  of  life,  that  the  commandments 
of  Jesus  appeal  to  you  in  all  their  efficiency.  The 
commandments  of  Jesus  will  surely  respond  to  your 


244  MY  RELIGION. 

inquiry,  because  they  apply  to  your  whole  existence. 
The  response  will  be  in  accord  with  your  reason  and 
your  conscience.  If  you  are  nearer  to  faith  than  to 
unbelief,  you  will,  in  following  these  commandments, 
act  in  harmony  with  the  will  of  God.  If  you  are 
nearer  to  scepticism  than  to  belief,  you  will,  in  fol- 
lowing the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  govern  your  actions  by 
the  laws  of  reason,  for  the  commandments  of  Jesus 
make  manifest  their  own  meaning,  and  their  own 
justification.     ' 

"Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world:  now  shall  the 
prince  of  this  ivorld  be  cast  out."     (John  xii.  31.) 

"  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  in  me 
ye  may  have  peace.  In  the  world  ye  have  tribu- 
lation :  but  be  of  good  cheer;  I  have  overcome  the 
worlds     (John  xvi.  33.) 

The  world,  that  is,  the  evil  in  the  world,  is  over- 
come. If  evil  still  exists  in  the  world,  it  exists  only 
through  the  influence  of  inertia ;  it  no  longer  con- 
tains the  principle  of  vitality.  For  those  who  have 
faith  in  the  commandments  of  Jesus,  it  does  not 
exist  at  all.  It  is  vanquished  by  an  awakened  con- 
science, by  the  elevation  of  the  son  of  man.  A  train 
that  has  been  put  in  motion  continues  to  move  in  the 
direction  in  which  it  was  started  ;  but  the  time  comes 
when  the  intelligent  effort  of  a  controlling  hand  is 
made  manifest,  and  the  movement  is  reversed. 

4  iYe  are  of  God,  and  have  overcome  them  because 
greater  is  he  that  is  within  you  than  he  that  is  in  the 
world"     (1  John  v.  4.) 

The  faith  that  triumphs  over  the  doctrines  of  the 
world  is  faith  in  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

I  BELIEVE  in  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  and  this  is 
my   religion  :  — 

I  believe  that  nothing  but  the  fulfilment  of  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  can  give  true  happiness  to 
men.  I  believe  that  the  fulfilment  of  this  doc- 
trine is  possible,  easy,  and  pleasant.  I  believe 
that  although  none  other  follows  this  doctrine, 
and  I  alone  am  left  to  practise  it,  I  cannot 
refuse  to  obey  it,  if  I  would  save  my  life  from  the 
certainty  of  eternal  loss  ;  just  as  a  man  in  a  burn- 
ing house  if  he  find  a  door  of  safety,  must  go  out, 
so  I  must  avail  myself  of  the  way  to  salvation.  I 
believe  that  my  life  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
world  has  been  a  torment,  and  that  a  life  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  can  alone  give  me  in  this 
world  the  happiness  for  which  I  was  destined  by  the 
Father  of  Life.  I  believe  that  this  doctrine  is 
essential  to  the  welfare  of  humanity,  will  save  me 
from  the  certainty  of  eternal  loss,  and  will  give  me 
in  this  world  the  greatest  possible  sum  of  happiness. 
Believing  thus,  I  am  obliged  to  practise  its  com- 
mandments. 

"  The  law  was  given  by  Moses;  grace  and  truth 
came  by  Jesus  Christ.'''     (John  i.  17.) 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  a  doctrine  of  grace  and 


246  MY  RELIGION. 

truth.  Once  I  knew  not  grace  and  knew  net  truth. 
Mistaking  evil  for  good,  I  fell  into  evil,  and  I 
doubted  the  righteousness  of  my  tendency  toward 
good.  I  understand  and  believe  now  that  the  good 
toward  which  I  was  attracted  is  the  will  of  the 
Father,  the  essence  of  life. 

Jesus  has  told  us  to  live  in  pursuit  of  the  goo<  I, 
and  to  beware  of  snares  and  temptations  (r/<ai/Sa/W) 
which,  by  enticing  us  with  the  semblance  of  good, 
draw  us  away  from  true  goodness,  and  lead  us  into 
evil.  He  has  taught  us  that  our  welfare  is  to  be 
sought  in  fellowship  with  all  men  ;  that  evil  is  a 
violation  of  fellowship  with  the  son  of  man,  and 
that  we  must  not  deprive  ourselves  of  the  welfare 
to  be  had  by  obedience  to  his  doctrine. 

Jesus  has  demonstrated  that  fellowship  with  the 
son  of  man,  the  love  of  men  for  one  another,  is  not 
merely  an  ideal  after  which  men  are  to  strive  ;  he 
has  shown  us  that  this  love  and  -  this  fellowship  are 
natural  attributes  of  meu  in  their  normal  condition, 
the  condition  into  which  children  are  born,  the  con- 
dition in  which  all  men  would  live  if  they  were  not 
drawn  aside  by  error,  illusions,  and  temptations. 

In  his  commandments,  Jesus  has  enumerated 
clearly  and  unmistakably  the  temptations  that  inter- 
fere with  this  natural  condition  of  love  and  fellow- 
ship and  render  it  a  prey  to  evil.  The  command- 
ments of  Jesus  offer  the  remedies  by  which  I  must 
save  myself  from  the  temptations  that  have  de- 
prived me  of  happiness ;  and  so  I  am  forced  to 
believe  that  these  commandments  are  true.     Happi- 


MY  RELIGION.  247 

ness  was  within  my  grasp  and  I  destroyed  it.  In 
his  commandments  Jesus  has  shown  me  the  tempta- 
tions that  lead  to  the  destruction  of  happiness.  I 
can  no  longer  work  for  the  destruction  of  my  hap- 
piness, and  in  this  determination,  and  in  this  alone, 
is  the  substance  of  my  religion. 

Jesus  has  shown  me  that  the  first  temptation 
destructive  of  happiness  is  enmity  toward  men, 
anger  against  them.  I  cannot  refuse  to  believe 
this,  and  so  I  cannot  willingly  remain  at  enmity 
with  others.  I  cannot,  as  I  could  once,  foster 
anger,  be  proud  of  it,  fan  it  into  flame,  justify  it, 
regarding  myself  as  an  intelligent  and  superior  man 
and  others  as  useless  and  foolish  people.  Now, 
when  I  give  up  to  anger,  I  can  only  realize  that  I. 
alone  am  guilt}7,  and  seek  to  make  peace  with  those 
who  have  aught  against  me. 

But  this  is  not  all.  While  I  now  see  that  anger 
is  an  abnormal,  pernicious,  and  morbid  state,  I  also 
perceive  the  temptation  that  led  me  into  it.  The 
temptation  was  in  separating  myself  from  my 
fellows,  recognizing  only  a  few  of  them  as  my 
equals,  and  regarding  all  the  others  as  persons  of 
no  account  (reJcim)  or  as  uncultivated  animals 
(fools) .  I  see  now  that  this  wilful  separation  from 
other  men,  this  judgment  of  raca  or  fool  passed 
upon  others,  was  the  principal  source  of  my  dis- 
agreements. In  looking  over  my  past  life  I  saw 
that  I  had  rarely  permitted  my  anger  to  rise  against 
those  whom  I  considered  as  my  equals,  whom  I 
seldom  abused.     But  the  least  disagreeable  action 


248  MY  RELIGION. 

on  the  part  of  one  whom  I  considered  an  inferior 
inflamed  my  anger  and  led  me  to  abusive  words  or 
actions,  and  the  more  superior  I  felt  myself  to  be, 
the  less  careful  I  was  of  my  temper  ;  sometimes  the 
mere  supposition  that  a  man  was  of  a  lower  social 
position  than  myself  was  enough  to  provoke  me  to 
an  outrageous  manner. 

I  understand  now  that  he  alone  is  above  others 
who  is  humble  with  others  and  makes  himself  the 
servant  of  all.  I  understand  now  why  those  that 
are  great  in  the  sight  of  men  are  an  abomination  to 
God,  who  has  declared  woe  upon  the  rich  and 
mighty  and  invoked  blessedness  upon  the  poor  and 
humble.  Now  I  understand  this  truth,  I  have  faith 
in  it,  and  this  faith  has  transformed  my  perception 
of  what  is  right  and  important,  and  what  is  wrong 
and  despicable.  Everything  that  once  seemed  to 
me  right  and  important,  such  as  honors,  glory,  civ- 
ilization, wealth,  the  complications  and  refinements 
of  existence,  luxury,  rich  food,  fine  clothing,  eti- 
quette, have  become  for  me  wrong  and  despicable. 
Everything  that  formerly  seemed  to  me  wrong  and 
despicable,  such  as  rusticity,  obscurity,  poverty, 
austerity,  simplicity  of  surroundings,  of  food,  of 
clothing,  of  manners,  all  have  now  become  right 
and  important  to  me.  And  so  although  I  may  at 
times  give  myself  up  to  anger  and  abuse  another,  I 
cannot  deliberately  yield  to  wrath  and  so  deprive 
myself  of  the  true  source  of  happiness,  —  fellowship 
and  love  ;  for  it  is  possible  that  a  man  should  lay  a 
snare  for  his  own  feet  and  so  be  lost.     Now,  I  can 


MY  RELIGION.  249 

no  longer  give  ray  support  to  anything  that  lifts  me 
above  or  separates  me  from  others.  I  cannot,  as  I 
once  did,  recognize  in  myself  or  others  titles  or 
ranks  or  qualities  aside  from  the  title  and  quality 
of  manhood.  I  can  no  longer  seek  for  fame  and 
glory ;  I  can  no  longer  cultivate  a  system  of  in- 
struction which  separates  me  from  men.  I  cannot 
in  ray  surroundings,  my  food,  my  clothing,  my 
manners,  strive  for  what  not  only  separates  me 
from  others  but  renders  me  a  reproach  to  the 
majority  of  mankind. 

Jesus  showed  me  another  temptation  destructive  of 
happiness,  that  is,  debaucheiy,  the  desire  to  possess 
another  woman  than  her  to  whom  I  am  united. 
I  can  no  longer,  as  I  did  once,  consider  my  sensu- 
ality as  a  sublime  trait  of  human  nature.  I  can  no 
longer  justify  it  by  my  love  for  the  beautiful,  or  my 
amorousness,  or  the  faults  of  my  companion.  At 
the  first  inclination  toward  debauchery  I  cannot  fail 
to  recognize  that  I  am  in  a  morbid  and  abnormal 
state,  and  to  seek  to  rid  myself  of  the  besetting  sin. 

Knowing  that  debauchery  is  an  evil,  I  also  know 
its  cause,  and  can  thus  evade  it.  I  know  now  that 
the  principal  cause  of  this  temptation  is  not  the 
necessity  for  the  sexual  relation,  but  the  abandon- 
ment of  wives  by  their  husbands,  and  of  husbands 
by  their  wives.  I  know  now  that  a  man  who  for- 
sakes a  woman,  or  a  woman  who  forsakes  a  man, 
when  the  two  have  once  been  united,  is  guilty  of  the 
divorce  which  Jesus  forbade,  because  men  ana 
women  abandoned  by  their  first  companions  are  the 
original  cause  of  all  the  debauchery  in  the  world. 


250  MY  RELIGION. 

In  seeking  to  discover  the  influences  that  led  to 
debauchery,  I  found  one  to  be  a  barbarous  physical 
and  intellectual  education  that  developed  the  erotic 
passion  which  the  world  endeavors  to  justify  by  the 
most  subtile  arguments.  But  the  principal  influence 
I  found  to  be  the  abandonment  of  the  woman  to 
whom  I  had  first  been  united,  and  the  situation  of 
the  abandoned  women  around  me.  The  principal 
source  of  temptation  was  not  in  carnal  desires,  but 
in  the  fact  that  those  desires  were  not  satisfied  in 
the  men  and  women  by  whom  I  was  surrounded.  I 
now  understand  the  words  of  Jesus  when  he  says  :  — 

M  He  which  made  them  from  the  beginning,  made 
them  male  and  female.  ...  So  that  they  are  no  more 
twain,  but  one  flesh.  What,  therefore,  God  hath 
joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder."  (Matt, 
xix.  4-G.) 

I  understand  now  that  monogamy  is  the  natural 
law  of  humanity,  which  cannot  with  impunity  be 
violated.  I  now  understand  perfectly  the  words  de- 
claring that  the  man  or  woman  who  separates  from 
a  companion  to  seek  another,  forces  the  forsaken 
one  to  resort  to  debauchery,  and  thus  introduces 
into  the  world  an  evil  that  returns  upon  those  who 
cause  it. 

This  I  believe  ;  and  the  faith  I  now  have  has 
transformed  my  opinions  with  regard  to  the  right 
and  important,  and  the  wrong  and  despicable,  things 
of  life.  What  once  seemed  to  me  the  most  delight- 
ful existence  in  the  world,  an  existence  made  up  of 
dainty,  aesthetic  pleasures  and  passions,  is  now  re- 


MY  RELIGION.  251 

volting  to  me.  And  a  life  of  simplicity  and  indi- 
gence, which  moderates  the  sexual  desires,  now 
seems  to  me  good.  The  human  institution  of  mar- 
riage, which  gives  a  nominal  sanction  to  the  union 
of  man  and  woman,  I  regard  as  of  less  grave  impor- 
tance than  that  the  union,  when  accomplished,  should 
be  regarded  as  the  will  of  God,  and  never  be  broken. 
Now,  when  in  moments  of  weakness  I  yield  to  the 
promptings  of  desire,  I  know  the  snare  that  would 
deliver  me  into  evil,  and  so  I  cannot  deliberately 
plan  my  method  of  existence  as  formerly  I  was  accus- 
tomed to  do.  I  no  longer  habitually  cherish  physical 
sloth  and  luxury,  which  excite  to  excessive  sensu- 
ality. I  can  no  longer  pursue  amusements  which 
are  oil  to  the  fire  of  amorous  sensuality,  — the  read- 
ing of  romances  and  the  most  of  poetry,  listening  to 
music,  attendance  at  theatres  and  balls,  —  amuse- 
ments that  once  seemed  to  me  elevated  and  refining, 
but  which  I  now  see  to  be  injurious.  I  can  no 
longer  abandon  the  woman  with  whom  I  have  been 
united,  for  I  know  that  by  forsaking  her,  I  set  a 
snare  for  myself,  for  her,  and  for  others.  I  can  no 
longer  encourage  the  gross  and  idle  existence  of 
others.  I  can  no  longer  encourage  or  take  part  in 
licentious  pastimes,  romantic  literature,  plays, 
operas,  balls,  which  are  so  many  snares  for  myself 
and  for  others.  I  cannot  favor  the  celibacy  of  per- 
sons fitted  for  the  marriage  relation.  I  cannot  en- 
courage the  separation  of  wives  from  their  husbands. 
I  cannot  make  any  distinction  between  unions  that 
are  called  by  the  name  of  marriage,  and  those  that 


252  my  religion: 

are  denied  this  name.  I  am  obliged  to  consider  as 
sacred  and  absolute  the  sole  and  unique  union  by 
which  man  is  once  for  all  indissolubly  bound  to  the 
first  woman  with  whom  he  has  been  united. 

Jesus  has  shown  me  that  the  third  temptation 
destructive  to  true  happiness  is  the  oath.  I  am 
obliged  to  believe  his  words  ;  consequently,  I  cannot, 
as  I  once  did,  bind  myself  by  oath  to  serve  any  one 
for  any  purpose,  and  I  can  no  longer,  as  I  did  for- 
merly, justify  myself  for  having  taken  an  oath  be- 
cause "  it  would  harm  no  one,"  because  everybody 
did  the  same,  because  it  is  necessary  for  the  State, 
because  the  consequences  might  be  bad  for  me  or 
for  some  one  else  if  I  refuse  to  submit  to  this  exac- 
tion. I  know  now  that  it  is  an  evil  for  myself  and 
for  others,  and  I  cannot  conform  to  it. 

Nor  is  this  all.  I  now  know  the  snare  that  led  me 
into  evil,  and  I  can  no  longer  act  as  an  accomplice. 
I  know  that  the  snare  is  in  the  use  of  God's  name  to 
sanction  an  imposture,  and  that  the  imposture  consists 
in  promising  in  advance  to  obey  the  commands  of 
one  man,  or  of  many  men,  while  I  ought  to  obey  the 
commands  of  God  alone.  I  know  now  that  evils  the 
most  terrible  of  all  in  their  result- — war,  imprison- 
ments, capital  punishment  —  exist  only  because  of 
the  oath,  in  virtue  of  which  men  make  themselves 
instruments  of  evil,  and  believe  that  they  free  them- 
selves from  all  responsibility.  As  I  think  now  of 
the  many  evils  that  have  impelled  me  to  hostility 
and  hatred,  I  see  that  they  all  originated  with  the 
the  oath,  the  engagement  to  submit  to  the  will  of 


MY  RELIGION.  253 

others.  I  understand  now  the  meaning  of  the 
words  :  — 

"  But  let  your  speech  be,.  Yea,  yea;  nay,  nay;  and 
whatsoever  is  more  than  these  is  of  evil."  (Matt.  v. 
37.) 

Understanding  this,  I  am  convinced  -that  the  oath 
is  destructive  of  my  true  welfare  and  of  that  of 
others,  and  this  belief  changes  my  estimate  of  right 
and  wrong,  of  the  important  and  despicable.  What 
once  seemed  to  me  right  and  important,  —  the  prom- 
ise of  fidelity  to  the  government  supported  by  the 
oath,  the  exacting  of  oaths  from  others,  and  all  acts 
contrary  to  conscience,  done  because  of  the  oath, 
now  seem  to  me  wrong  and  despicable.  Therefore 
I  can  no  longer  evade  the  commandment  of  Jesus 
forbidding  the  oath,  I  can  no  longer  bind  myself  by 
oath  to  any  one,  I  cannot  exact  an  oath  from  an- 
other, I  cannot  encourage  men  to  take  an  oath,  or 
to  cause  others  to  take  an  oath ;  nor  can  I  regard  the 
oath  as  necessar}',  important,  or  even  inoffensive. 

Jesus  has  shown  me  that  the  fourth  temptation 
destructive  to  my  happiness  is  the  resort  to  violence 
for  the  resistance  of  evil.  I  am  obliged  to  believe 
that  this  is  an  evil  for  myself  and  for  others ;  con- 
sequently, I  cannot,  as  I  did  once,  deliberately  resort 
to  violence,  and  seek  to  justify  my  action  with  the 
pretext  that  it  is  indispensable  for  the  defence  of 
my  person  and  property,  or  of  the  persons  and  prop- 
erty of  others.  I  can  no  longer  yield  to  the  first 
impulse  to  resort  to  violence ;  I  am  obliged  to  re- 
nounce it,  and  to  abstain  from  it  altogether. 


254  MY  RELIGION. 

But  this  is  not  all.  I  understand  now  the  snare 
that  caused  me  to  fall  into  this  evil.  I  know  now 
that  the  snare  consisted  in  the  erroneous  belief  that 
my  life  could  be  made  secure  by  violence,  by  the 
defence  of  my  person  and  property  against  the 
encroachments  of  others.  I  know  now  that  a  great 
portion  of  the  evils  that  afflict  mankind  are  due  to 
this,  —  that  men,  instead  of  giving  their  work  for 
others,  deprive  themselves  completely  of  the  privi- 
lege of  work,  and  forcibly  appropriate  the  labor  of 
their  fellows.  Every  one  regards  a  resort  to  vio- 
lence as  the  best  possible  security  for  life  and  for 
property,  and  I  now  see  that  a  great  portion  of  the 
evil  that  I  did  myself,  and  saw  others  do,  resulted 
from  this  practice.  I  understood  now  the  meaning 
of  the  words  :  — 

"Not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister." 
"The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  food." 

I  believe  now  that  my  true  welfare,  and  that  of 
others,  is  possible  only  when  I  labor  not  for  myself, 
but  for  another,  and  that  I  must  not  refuse  to  labor 
for  another,  but  to  give  with  joy  that  of  which  he 
has  need.  This  faith  has  changed  my  estimate  of 
what  is  right  and  important,  and  wrong  and  despi- 
cable. What  once  seemed  to  me  right  and  impor- 
tant—  riches,  proprietary  rights,  the  point  of  honor, 
the  maintenance  of  personal  dignity  and  personal 
privileges  —  have  now  become  to  me  wrong  and 
despicable.  Labor  for  others,  poverty,  humility, 
the  renunciation  of  property  and  of  personal  privi- 
leges, have  become  in  my  eyes  right  and  important. 


MY  RELIGION.  255 

When,  now,  in  a  moment  of  forgetfulness,  I  yield 
to  the  impulse  to  resort  to  violence,  for  the  defence 
of  my  person  or  property,  or  of  the  persons  or  prop- 
erty of  others,  I  can  no  longer  deliberateh'  make 
use  of  this  snare  for  my  own  destruction  and  the 
destruction  of  others.  I  can  no  longer  acquire  prop- 
erty. I  can  no  longer  resort  to  force  in  any  form 
for  my  own  defence  or  the  defence  of  another.  I 
can  no  longer  co-operate  with  any  power  whose 
object  is  the  defence  of  men  and  their  propert}'  by 
violence.  I  can  no  longer  act  in  a  judicial  capacity, 
or  clothe  myself  with  any  authority,  or  take  part  in 
the  exercise  of  any  jurisdiction  whatever.  I  can  no 
longer  encourage  others  in  the  support  of  tribunals, 
or  in  the  exercise  of  authoritative  administration. 

Jesus  has  shown  me  that  the  fifth  temptation 
that  deprives  me  of  well-being,  is  the  distinction 
that  we  make  between  compatriots  and  foreigners. 
I  must  believe  this ;  consequently,  if,  in  a  moment 
of  forgetfulness,  I  have  a  feeling  of  hostility  toward 
a  man  of  another  nationality,  I  am  obliged,  in 
moments  of  reflection,  to  regard  this  feeling  as 
wrong.  I  can  no  longer,  as  I  did  formerly,  justify 
my  hostility  by  the  superiority  of  my  own  people 
over  others,  or  by  the  ignorance,  the  cruelty,  or  the 
barbarism  of  another  race.  I  can  no  longer  refrain 
from  striving  to  be  even  more  friendly  with  a  for- 
eigner than  with  one  of  nry  own  countrymen. 

I  know  now  that  the  distinction  I  once  made 
between  my  own  people  and  those  of  other  countries 
is  destructive  of  my  welfare  ;  but,  more  than  this, 


256  MY  RELIGION. 

I  now  know  the  snare  that  led  me  into  this  evil,  and 
I  can  no  longer,  as  I  did  ouce,  walk  deliberately 
and  calmly  into  this  snare.  I  know  now  that  this 
snare  consists  in  the  erroneous  belief  that  my  wel- 
fare is  dependent  only  upon  the  welfare  of  my 
countrymen,  and  not  upon  the  welfare  of  all  man- 
kind. I  know  now  that  my  fellowship  with  others 
cannot  be  shut  off  by  a  frontier,  or  Iry  a  government 
decree  which  decides  that  I  belong  to  some  particu- 
lar political  organization.  I  know  now  that  all  men 
are  everywhere  brothers  and  equals.  When  I  think 
now  of  all  the  evil  that  I  have  done,  that  I  have 
endured,  and  that  I  have  seen  about  me,  arising 
from  national  enmities,  I  see  clearly  that  it  is  all 
due  to  that  gross  imposture  called  patriotism,  —  love 
for  one's  native  land.  When  I  think  now  of  my 
education,  I  see  how  these  hateful  feelings  were 
grafted  into  my  mind.  I  understand  now  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  :  — 

'''■Love  your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  perse- 
cute you;  that  ye  may  be  sons  of  your  Father  that  is 
in  heaven:  for  he  mdketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil 
and  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the 
unjust" 

I  understand  now  that  true  welfare  is  possible  for 
me  only  on  condition  that  I  recognize  my  fellowship 
with  the  whole  world.  I  believe  this,  and  the  belief 
has  changed  my  estimate  of  what  is  right  and  wrong, 
important  and  despicable.  What  once  seemed  to 
me  right  and  important  —  love  of  country,  love  fcr 
those  of  my  own  race,  for  the  organization  called 


MY  RELIGION.  257 

the  State,  services  rendered  at  the  expense  of  the 
welfare  of  other  men,  military  exploits  —  now  seem 
to  me  detestable  and  pitiable.  What  once  seemed 
to  me  shameful  and  wrong  —  renunciation  of  nation- 
ality, and  the  cultivation  of  cosmopolitanism  —  now 
s.-em  to  me  right  and  important.  When,  now,  in  a 
moment  of  forgetfulness,  I  sustain  a  Russian  in 
preference  to  a  foreigner,  and  desire  the  success  of 
Russia  or  of  the  Russian  people,  I  can  no  longer  in 
lucid  moments  allow  myself  to  be  controlled  by 
illusions  so  destructive  to  my  welfare  and  the  wel- 
fare of  others.  I  can  no  longer  recognize  states  or 
peoples  ;  I  can  no  longer  take  part  in  any  difference 
between  peoples  or  states,  or  any  discussion  be- 
tween them  cither  oral  or  written,  much  less  in 
any  service  in  behalf  of  any  particular  state.  \  I  can 
no  longer  co-operate  with  measures  maintained  by 
divisions  between  states,  —  the  collection  of  custom 
duties,  taxes,  the  manufacture  of  arms  and  projec- 
tiles, or  any  act  favoring  armaments,  military  ser- 
vice, and,  for  a  stronger  reason,  wars, — neither 
can  I  encourage  others  to  take  any  part  in  them.  ) 

I  understand  in  what  my  true  welfare  consists,  I 
have  faith  in  that,  and  consequently  I  cannot  do 
what  would  inevitably  be  destructive  of  that  welfare. 
I  not  only  have  faith  that  I  ought  to  live  thus,  but  I 
have  faith  that  if  I  live  thus,  and  only  thus,  my  life 
will  attain  its  only  possible  meaning,  and  be  reason- 
able, pleasant,  and  indestructible  by  death.  I 
believe  that  my  reasonable  life,  the  light  I  bear  with 
me,  was  given  to  me  only  that  it  might  shine  before 


258  MY  RELIGION. 

men,  not  in  words  only,  but  in  good  deeds,  that 
men  may  thereby  glorify  the  Father.  I  believe  that 
my  life  and  my  consciousness  of  truth  is  the  talent 
confided  to  me  for  a  good  purpose,  and  that  this 
talent  fulfils  its  mission  only  when  it  is  of  use  to 
others.  I  believe  that  I  am  a  Ninevite  with  regard 
to  other  Jonahs  from  whom  I  have  learned  and  shall 
learn  of  the  truth ;  but  that  I  am  a  Jonah  in  regard 
to  other  Ninevites  to  whom  I  am  bound  to  transmit 
the  truth.  I  believe  that  the  only  meaning  of  my 
life  is  to  be  attained  by  living  in  accordance  with 
the  light  that  is  within  me,  and  that  I  must  allow 
this  light  to  shine  forth  to  be  seen  of  all  men.  This 
faith  gives  me  renewed  strength  to  fulfil  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  and  to  overcome  the  obstacles  which  still 
arise  in  my  pathway.  All  that  once  caused  me  to 
doubt  the  possibility  of  practising  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  everything  that  once  turned  me  aside,  the 
possibility  of  privations,  and  of  suffering,  and  death, 
inflicted  by  those  who  know  not  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  now  confirm  its  truth  and  draw  me  into  its 
service.  Jesus  said,  "  When  you  have  lifted  up  the 
so%  of  man,  then  shall  you  know  that  I  am  he"  — 
then  shall  you  be  drawn  into  my  service,  —  and  *I 
feel  that  I  am  irresistibly  drawn  to  him  by  the  influ- 
ence of  his  doctrine.  "  The  truth"  he  says  again, 
"  The  truth  shall  make  you  free  "  and  I  know  that  I 
am  in  perfect  liberty. 

I  once  thought  that  if  a  foreign  invasion  occurred, 
or  even  if  evil-minded  persons  attacked  me,  and  I  did 
not  defend  myself,  I  should  be  robbed  and  beaten  and 


my  religion:  259 

tortured  and  killed  with  those  whom  I  felt  bound  to 
protect,  and  this  possibility  troubled  me.  But  this 
that  once  troubled  me  now  seems  desirable  and  in 
conformity  with  the  truth.  I  know  now  that  the 
foreign  enemy  and  the  malefactors  or  brigands  are 
all  men  like  myself ;  that,  like  myself,  they  love 
good  and  hate  evil ;  that  they  live  as  I  live,  on  the 
borders  of  death ;  and  that,  with  me,  they  seek  for 
salvation,  and  will  find  it  in  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 
The  evil  that  they  do  to  me  will  be  evil  to  them,  and 
so  can  be  nothing  but  good  for  me.  But  if  truth  is 
unknown  to  them,  and  they  do  evil  thinking  that 
they  do  good,  I,  who  know  the  truth,  am  bound  to 
reveal  it  to  them,  and  this  I  can  do  only  by  refusing 
to  participate  in  evil,  and  thereby  confessing  the 
truth  by  my  example. 

"  But  hither  come  the  enemy,  —  Germans,  Turks, 
savages  ;  if  you  do  not  make  war  on  them,  they  will 
exterminate  you  !  "  They  will  do  nothing  of  the 
sort.  If  there  were  a  society  of  Christian  men  that 
did  ?vil  to  none  and  gave  of  their  labor  for  the 
good  of  others,  such  a  society  would  have  no  ene- 
mve^  to  kill  or  to  torture  them.  The  foreigners 
would  take  only  what  the  members  of  this  society 
voluntarily  gave,  making  no  distinction  between 
Russians,  or  Turks,  or  Germans.  But  when  Chris- 
tians live  in  the  midst  of  a  non-Christian  society 
which  defends  itself  by  force  of  arm,  and  calls  upon 
the  Christians  to  join  in  waging  war,  then  the  Chris- 
tians have  an  opportunity  for  revealing  the  truth  to 
them  who  know  it  not.     A  Christian  knowing  the 


260  MY  RELIGION. 

truth  bears  witness  of  the  truth  before  others,  and 
this  testimony  can  be  made  manifest  only  by  ex- 
ample. He  must  renounce  war  and  do  good  to 
all  men,  whether  they  are  foreigners  or  compatriots. 

"  But  there  are  wicked  men  among  compatriots; 
they  will  attack  a  Christian,  and  if  the  latter  do  not 
defend  himself,  will  pillage  and  massacre  him  and 
his  family."  No ;  they  will  not  do  so.  If  all  the 
members  of  this  family  are  Christians,  and  conse- 
quently hold  their  lives  only  for  the  service  of 
others,  no  man  will  be  found  insane  enough  to 
deprive  such  people  of  the  necessaries  of  life  or  to 
kill  them.  The  famous  Maclay  lived  among  the 
most  bloodthirsty  of  savages ;  they  did  not  kill 
him,  they  reverenced  him  and  followed  his  teach- 
ings, simply  because  he  did  not  fear  them,  exacted 
nothing  from  them,  and  treated  them  always  with 
kindness. 

"  But  what  if  a  Christian  lives  in  a  non-Christian 
family,  accustomed  to  defend  itself  and  its  property 
by  a  resort  to  violence,  and  is  called  upon  to  take 
part  in  measures  of  defence  ?  "  This  solicitation  is 
simply  an  appeal  to  the  Christian  to  fulfil  the  decrees 
of  truth.  A  Christian  knows  the  truth  only  that  he 
may  show  it  to  others,  more  especially  to  his  neigh- 
bors and  to  those  who  are  bound  to  him  b}*  ties  of 
blood  and  friendship,  and  a  Christian  can  show  the 
truth  onl}'  by  refusing  to  join  in  the  errors  of  others, 
by  taking  part  neither  with  aggressors  or  defenders, 
but  by  abandoning  all  that  he  has  to  those  who  will 
take  it  from  him,  thus  showing  by  his  acts  that  he 


MY  RELIGION.  261 

has  need  of  nothing  save  the  fulfilment  of  the  will  of 
God,  and  that  he  fears  nothing  except  disobedience 
to  that  will. 

"But  how,  if  the  government  will  not  permit  a 
member  of  the  society  over  which  it  has  sway,  to 
refuse  to  recognize  the  fundamental  principles  of 
governmental  order  or  to  decline  to  fulfil  the  duties 
of  a  citizen  ?  The  government  exacts  from  a  Chris- 
tian the  oath,  jury  service,  military  service,  and  his 
refusal  to  conform  to  these  demands  may  be  punished 
by  exile,  imprisonment,  and  even  by  death."  Then, 
once  more,  the  exactions  of  those  in  authority  are 
only  an  appeal  to  the  Christian  to  manifest  the  truth 
that  is  in  him.  The  exactions  of  those  in  authority 
are  to  a  Christian  the  exactions  of  those  who  do 
not  know  the  truth.  Consequently,  a  Christian 
who  knows  the  truth  must  bear  witness  of  the  truth 
to  those  who'  know  it  not.  Exile  and  imprisonment 
and  death  afford  to  the  Christian  the  possibility  of 
bearing  witness  of  the  truth,  not  in  words,  bat  in 
acts.  Violence,  war,  brigandage,  executions,  are 
not  accomplished  through  the  forces  of  unconscious 
nature ;  they  are  accomplished  by  men  who  are 
blinded,  and  do  not  know  the  truth.  Consequently, 
the  more  evil  these  men  do  to  Christians,  the  further 
the}'  are  from  the  truth,  the  more  unhappy  the}'  are, 
and  the  more  necessary  it  is  that  they  should  have 
knowledge  of  the  truth.  Now  a  Christian  cannot 
make  known  his  knowledge  of  truth  except  by  ab- 
staining from  the  errors  that  lead  men  into  evil ;  he 
must  render  good  for  evil.     This  is  the  life-work  of 


262  MY  RELIGION. 

a  Christian,  and  if  it  is  accomplished,  death  cannot 
'harm  him,  for  the  meaning  of  his  life  can  never  be 
destroyed. 

Men  are  united  by  error  into  a  compact  mass. 
The  prevailing  power  of  evil  is  the  cohesive  force 
that  binds  them  together.  The  reasonable  activity 
of  humanity  is  to  destroy  the  cohesive  power  of  evil. 
Revolutions  are  attempts  to  shatter  the  power  of 
evil  by  violence.  Men  think  that  by  hammering 
upon  the  mass  the}T  will  be  able  to  break  it  in  frag- 
ments, but  they  only  make  it  more  dense  and  im- 
permeable than  it  was  before.  External  violence  is 
of  no  avail.  The  disruptive  movement  must  come 
from  within  when  molecule  releases  its  hold  upon 
molecule  and  the  whole  mass  falls  into  disintegra- 
tion. Error  is  the  force  that  welds  men  together ; 
truth  alone  can  set  them  free.  Now  truth  is  truth 
only  when  it  is  in  action,  and  then  only  can  it  be 
transmitted  from  man  to  man.  Only  truth  in  action, 
by  introducing  light  into  the  conscience  of  each 
individual,  can  dissolve  the  homogeneity  of  error, 
and  detach  men  one  by  one  from  its  bonds. 

This  work  has  been  going  on  for  eighteen  hundred 
years.  It  began  when  the  commandments  of  Jesus 
were  first  given  to  humanity,  and  it  will  not  cease 
till,  as  Jesus  said,  "  all  things  be  accomplished" 
(Matt.  v.  18) .  The  Church  that  sought  to  detach 
men  from  error  and  to  weld  them  together  again 
by  the  solemn  affirmation  that  it  alone  was  the  truth, 
has  long  since  fallen  to  decay.  But  the  Church 
composed  of  men  united,  not  by  promises  or  sacra- 


MY  RELIGION.  263 

ments,  but  by  deeds  of  truth  and  love,  has  always 
lived  and  will  live  forever.  Now,  as  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ago,  this  Church  is  made  up  not  of  those 
who  say  "  Lord,  Lord,'*  and  bring  forth  iniquity,  but 
of  those  who  hear  the  words  of  truth  and  reveal 
them  in  their  lives.  The  members  of  this  Church 
know  that  life  is  to  them  a  blessing  as  long  as  they 
maintain  fraternity  with  others  and  dwell  in  the 
fellowship  of  the  son  of  man  ;  and  that  the  blessing 
will  be  lost  only  to  those  who  do  not  obey  the  com- 
mandments of  Jesus.  And  so  the  members  of  this 
Church  practise  the  commandments  of  Jesus  and. 
thereby  teach  them  to  others.  Whether  this  Church 
be  in  numbers  little  or  great,  it  is,  nevertheless,  the 
Church  that  shall  never  perish,  the  Church  that  shall 
finally  unite  within  its  bonds  the  hearts  of  all  man- 
kind. 

"  Fear  not,  little  flock;  for  it  is  your  Father's  good 
purpose  to  give  you  the  kingdom." 


APPENDIX. 


WHEN  Count  Tolstoi  speaks  of  the  Church  and 
its  dogmas,  he  refers  especially,  of  course, 
to  the  Orthodox  Greek  Church,  the  national  church 
of  Russia.  The  following  summary  of  the  teachings 
of  the  Orthodox  Greek  Church  is  taken  from  Prof. 
T.  M.  Lindsay's  article  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Brit- 
tanica,  ninth  edition,  volume  xi.  p.  158.  Variations 
from  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  are  indicated  by 
small  capitals,  and  variations  from  Protestant  doc- 
trine by  italics.     [Tr.] 

"Christianity  is  a  divine  revelation,  communi- 
cated to  mankind  through  Christ ;  its  saving  truths 
are  to  be  learned  from  the  Bible  and  tradition,  the 
former  having  been  written,  and  the  latter  main- 
tained uncorrupted  through  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  belongs  to  the 
Church,  which  is  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  every 
believer  may  read  the  Scriptures. 

"  According  to  the  Christian  revelation,  God  is  a 
trinity,  that  is,  the  divine  essence  exists  in  three 
persons,  perfectly  equal  in  nature  and  dignity,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  Holy 
Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  only.     Besides 


266  APPENDIX. 

the  triune  God,  there  is  no  other  object  of  divine 
worship,  but  homage  {v-n-epSovXia)  may  be  paid  to  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  reverence  (SovXta)  to  the  saints 
and  to  their  pictures  and  relics. 

"  Man  is  born  with  a  corrupt  bias,  which  was  not 
his  at  creation  ;  the  first  man,  when  created,  pos- 
sessed  IMMORTALITY,    PERFECT   WISDOM,    AND    A   WILL 

regulated  by  reason.  Through  the  first  sin,  Adam 
and  his  posterity  lost  immortality,  and  his  will 
received  a  bias  towards  evil.  In  this  natural 
state,  man,  who,  even  before  he  actually  sins,  is  a 
sinner  before  God  by  original  or  inherited  sin,  com- 
mits manifold  actual  transgressions ;  but  he  is  not 
absolutely  without  power  of  will  towards  good,  and  is 
not  always  doing  evil. 

"  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  became  man  in  two 
natures,  which  internally  and  inseparably  united 
make  One  Person,  and,  according  to  the  eternal 
purpose  of  God,  has  obtained  for  man  reconcilia- 
tion with  God  and  eternal  life,  inasmuch  as  he,  by 
his  vicarious  death  has  made  satisfaction  to  God  for 
the  world's  sins ;  and  this  satisfaction  was  per- 
fectly COMMENSURATE  WITH  THE  SINS  OF  THE  WORLD. 

Man  is  made  partaker  of  reconciliation  in  spiritual 
regeneration,  which  he  attains  to,  being  led  and 
kept  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  divine  help  is  offered 
to  all  men  without  distinction,  and  may  be  rejected. 
In  order  to  attain  to  salvation,  man  is  justified,  and, 
when  so  justified,  can  do  no  moke  than  the  com- 
mands of  God.  He  may  fall  from  this  state  of 
grace  through  mortal  sin. 


APPENDIX.  267 

"  Regeneration  is  offered  by  the  word  of  God 
and  in  the  sacraments,  which,  under  visible  signs, 
communicate  God's  invisible  grace  to  Christians  when 
administered  cum  intentione.  There  are  seven  mys- 
teries or  sacraments.  Baptism  entirely  destroys 
original  sin.  In  the  Eucharist,  the  true  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  substantially  present,  and  the 
elements  are  changed  into  the  substance  of  Christ, 
whose  body  and  blood  are  corporeally  partaken  of  by 
communicants.  All  Christians  should  receive  the 
bread  and  the  wine.  The  Eucharist  is  also  an 
expiatory  sacrifice.  The  new  birth  when  lost  ma}' 
be  restored  through  repentance,  which  is  not  merely 
(1)  sincere  sorrow,  but  also  (2)  confession  of  each 
individual  sin  to  the  priest,  and  (3)  the  discharge  oj 
penances  imposed  by  the  priest  for  the  removal  of  the 
temporal  punishment,  which  may  have  been  imposed 
by  God  and  the 'Church.  Penance,  accompanied  by 
the  judicial  absolution  of  the  priest,  makes  a  true 
sacrament. 

"The  Church  of  Christ  is  the  fellowship  of  all 

THOSE  WHO  ACCEPT  AND  PROFESS  ALL  THE  ARTICLES 
OF  FAITH  TRANSMITTED  BY  THE  APOSTLES,  AND  AP- 
PROVED by  General  Synods.  Without  this  visible 
Church  there  is  no  salvation.  It  is  under  the  abiding 
influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  cannot  err 
in  matters  of  faith.  Specially  appointed  persons  are 
necessary  in  the  service  of  the  Church,  and  they 
form  a  threefold  order,  distinct  jure  divino  from 
other  Christians,  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons. 
The  four  Patriarchs  of  equal  dignity  have  the 


268  APPENDIX. 

HIGHEST  RANK  AMONG  THE  BISHOPS,  AND  THE  BISH- 
OPS united  in  a  General  Council  represent  the  Church 
and  infallibly  decide,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  all  matters  of  faith  and  ecclesiastical  life. 
All  ministers  of  Christ  must  be  regularly  called  and 
appointed  to  their  office,  and  are  consecrated  by  the 
sacrament  of  orders.  Bishops  must  be  unmarried, 
and  priests  and  deacons  must  not  contract  a 
second  marriage.  To  all  priests  in  common  be- 
longs, besides  the  preaching  of  the  word,  the  admin- 
istration Of  the  SIX  SACRAMENTS, BAPTISM,  CONFIR- 
MATION,   PENANCE,     EUCHARIST,    MATRIMONY,    UNCTION 

of  the  sick.  The  bishops  alone  can  administer  the 
sacrament  of  orders. 

"Ecclesiastical  ceremonies  are  part  of  the  divine 
service;  most  of  them  have  apostolic  origin;  and 
those  connected  with  the  sacrament  must  not  be  omitted 
by  priests  under  pain  of  mortal  sin," 


INDEX. 


Abraham,  165. 

Adam,  fall  of,  118, 122. 

Age,    consummation   of,   139, 

152. 
Amusements,    harmful,    105 ; 

maintained  by  coercion,  106. 
Anger,       the      commandment 

against,  70  et  seq.)  destruc- 
tive     of     happiness,    *247 ; 

temptations  to,  247. 
kvicrr-nixi,  meaning  of,  146. 
Army,  the  Christophile,  15. 
Art  has  forsaken  the  Church, 

224. 
avferstehn,  meaning  of,  146. 
Aurelius,  Marcus,  126. 
Average    man,    the.   and    the 

problem  of  existence,  229. 
Belief,  if  true,  always  brings 

forth  works,  100  et  seq. 
Believers,  and  the  problem  of 

existence,  228. 
Berditchef,  circus  at,  135,  157. 
Bible,  17. 
Biblical    references.  —  O.    T. : 

Gen.  (iii.  22)  149;  Exod.  (iii. 

6)  144;  Levit.  (xix.  12)  86, 

(xix.  17,  18)  94;  Deut.  (xiii. 

21,  34)  86,  (xxiv.  1)  77,  (xxx. 

15-19)    150,    (xxxii.  39,  40) 


149;  Judges  (ix.  4)  76;  Sam, 
(I.  viii.-xii.)  18;  Isaiah  (lxi. 
1,2)  110.  N.T.:  Matt.  (iv. 
1-11)  178,  (iv.  37)  253,  (v.) 
17,  (v.,  vi.,  vii.)  5,    (v.  17- 

20)  51,  52,  53,  (v.  18)  262, 
(v.  19). 70,  (v.  21-26)  70,76, 
(v.  21-48)  69,  (v.  22-44)  109, 
(v.  27-32)  77,  (v.  28-32)  109, 
(v.  32)  79,  81,  (v.  33-37)  86, 

91,  (v.  34-37)  109,  (v.  36)  89, 
(v.  38,  39)  7,  8,   (v.  38-42) 

92,  93,  110,  (v.  40)  26,  (v.  43- 
48)  95,  110,  (v.  44)  256,  (vii. 
1 )"  23,  (vii.  12)57,  (x.10)  200, 
254,  (xi.  30)  14,  (xii.  16-21) 

138,  (xii.  31)  217,  (xii.  35- 
40)  139,  (xii.  40)  145,  (xiii. 
52)  62,  (xiv.  2)  146,  (xvi.  13- 

21)  145,  (xvi.  21)  145,  (xvii. 
23)  145,  (xix.)  79,  (xix.  4-6) 
250,  (xix.  4-9)  80,  (xix.  9) 
81,  84,  (xix.  17)  151,  (xx.  1- 
16)  167,  168,  (xx.  19)  145, 
(xx.  20-28)  166,  (xxi.  33-42) 

139,  (xxii.  44)  98,  (xxiii.  13- 
35)  217,  (xxv.  14-46)  142, 
(xxvi.  32)  145,  (xxvii.  42) 
163;  Mark  (viii.  31)  145,  (ix. 
31)  145,  (x.  5-12)  79,  (x.  28 


270 


INDEX. 


30).  180,  (x.  34)  145,  (x.  35- 
48)  166,  (x.  45)  202,  254,  (xii. 
21-24)  144,  (xii.  26,  27)  144, 
(xii.  36)  98,  (xiv.  25)  145, 
(xv.  32)  163;  Luke  (i.  71, 
74)  98,  (iv.  1-13)  178,  (iv.  18, 
19,  21)  111,  (vi.  37)  23,  (vi. 
37^9)  24,  (ix.  22)  145,  (x.  5, 
7)  200,  (x.  26)  61,  (x.  28)  151, 
(x.  29)  98,  (xi.  30)  145,  (xi. 
35)  125,  216,  (xii.  22-27)  137, 
(xii.  32)  263,  (xii.  54-57)  136, 
(xiii.  1-5)  135,  (xiv.  28-31) 
136,  (xvi.  15-18)  54,  (xvi. 
16)  57,  (xvi.  18)  79,  (xvi. 
31)  147,  (xviii.  33)  145,  (xx. 
43)  98,  (xxii.  67),  163;  John 
.  (i.  9-12)  171,  (i.  17)  245, 
(iii.  5,  6,  7)  125,  (iii.  19-21) 
171,  (iii.  14-17)  125,  (v.  39) 
150,  (v.  44)  164,  (vi.  30)  163, 
(vii.  18)  164,  (vii.-19)  57, 
(viii.  17)  57,  (viii.  28)  125, 
258,  (viii.  32)  258,  (viii.  35) 
141,  (viii.  40)  171,  (viii.'46) 

171,  (x.  25,  26)  163,  (xi.  19- 
22)  145,  (xii.  31)  244,  (xii.  35) 
125,  (xiv.  6)  172,  (xiv.  16, 17) 

172,  (xiv.  27)  109,  (xv.  25)  57, 
(xvi.  33)  244,  (xviii.  37)  172, 
(xix.  7)  57;  Acts  (vii.  27) 
98,  (xxiii.  8)  143;  Rom.  (i. 
32,  ii.  1,  ii.4)  31;  Cor.  (I.  vii. 
1-11)  80,  (I.  xv.  2)  75;  Heb. 
(ii.  2)  115;  Jas.  (ii.  12,  13) 
30,  (ii.  13)  29,  (ii.  14-26)  163, 
(iv.  11,  12)  28,  (v.  6)  35,  (v. 
12)  89;  John  (I.  v.  3)  14,  (I. 
V.  4)  244. 

Borovitzky  Gate,  19. 


Brahmins,  173,  218. 

Buddha,  134,  218. 

Buddhism,  124. 

Catechism  analyzed,  213. 

Children,  education  of,  105. 

Christian  rationalists  in  Rus- 
sia, 223. 

Christianity,  substance  of,  2, 
13;  a  spiritual  tendency,  4; 
lack  of  ethical  and  moral 
instruction  in,  123. 

Christians  may  believe  in  Je- 
sus, 241;  duties  of,  258  et 
seq. 

Chrysostom,  xi.,  33,  63  et 
seq.;  79,  92. 

Church,  the  fathers  of,  31,  81, 
93;  the  Orthodox,  2;  creed 
of,' 265;  inadequacy  of  3,  4, 
175,  209-244;  teachings  of, 
4,  40,  47,  58,  62,  107, 115, 127, 
154,  178,  213-217,  227;  com- 
pulsory in  Russia,  216;  the 
true,  262. 

Churches,  as  useless  sentinels, 
224. 

Civilization,  characteristics  of, 
42,  233. 

Clement,  x. 

Commandments,  abrogated  by 
the  Church,  214. 

Commentators,  pseudo-Chris- 
tian, 91;  liberal,  93. 

condemnare,  34. 

Confucius,  124,  126,  127,  218. 

Constantine,  31,  219. 

Cosmopolitanism,  importance 
of,  257. 

Daniel,  apocryphal  book  of, 
149. 


INDEX. 


271 


Death,    inevitable,    137,    138, 

139. 
Death  penalty,  sanctioned  by 

the  Church,  221. 
Debauchery,  77  et  seq.;  Paul's 

idea  of,  80;  destructive   of 

happiness,  249;  temptations 

to,  251. 
Devotion,  a  pagan    book  of, 

212. 
Divorce,  denounced  by  Jesus, 

78  et  seq.;  sanctioned  by  the 

Church,  221. 
So|a,  meaning  of,  164. 
iyeipco,  meaning  of,  146. 
ehebruch,  meaning  of,  84. 
ciKr},  meaning  and  textual  au- 
thenticity of,  75. 
Elijah,  48,  145. 
rjKtKiav,  meaning  of,  137. 
Enemy,  love  for,  95  et  seq.; 

meaning  of,  98. 
Epictetus,  89,  126,  127. 
Error,  temptation  of  Jesus  by, 

178;  the  cohesive  power  of, 

262. 
Esdras,  56. 
Evil,  submission  to,  8  et  seq., 

13,  92-94;  resistance  to,  15; 

destructive     of     happiness, 

253;  to  speak,  28,  32. 
Existence,  its  futilities,  226. 
Faith,  defined,  115,  162,  166, 

244;    and    works,   160,    169; 

based  on  the  dictates  of  rea- 
son, 170;  source  of,  171;  the 

false,  173. 
Fall,  dogma  of  the,  120,  153. 
Family,    the,   a   condition   of 

happiness,  187. 


Foreigners,  hostility  toward, 
100;  destructive  of  happi- 
ness, 255. 

Formalism,  evils  of,  68. 

fornicatio,  meaning  of,  83. 

Free-will,  an  illusion,  124. 

French  war  of  1870,  198. 

Galilee,  41,^44,  48,  49,  178. 

Galileans,  massacre  of,  135. 

Germans,  45,  259. 

Ghengis  Khan,  36. 

God,  service  of,  21 ;  appears  to 
Elijah,  48;  commandments 
of,  51 ;  kingdom  of,  108,  111, 
160;  how  brought,  209. 

Gospels,  exegesis,  1,  55,  75. 

Griesbach,  175. 

Happiness,  conditions  of,  185- 
189. 

chayai  olam,    meaning  of,  148. 

Health,  a  condition  of  happi- 
ness, 189. 

Hebrews,  176. 

Hegelianism,  122. 

Herod,  25,  146. 

High  Priests,  25,  59. 

Householder,  parable  of,  168. 

hvrerei.  meaning  of,  83. 

Husbandmen,  parable  of,  139. 

Immortality,  belief  in,  147, 
150,  153,  155. 

Irenaeus,  62. 

Isaiah,  56,  61. 

James,  167. 

Jesus,  as  the  "  charmant  doc- 
teur,"  41  ;  divinity  of,  15; 
the  enemies  of,  60;  his  use 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  67;  com- 
mandments of,  69,  76,  86, 
194,  242,  246  et  seq.;  mission 


272 


INDEX. 


of,  108;  the  Messiah,  111, 
145,  158;  his  revelation  of 
the  true  life,  139;  his  doc- 
trine of  eternal  life,  153;  as 
a  Saviour,  158;  his  definition 
of  belief,  164:  of  true  life, 
167;  his  temptation  in  the 
wilderness,  177;  offers  the 
water  of  truth,  196. 
Jesus,  doctrine  of,  its  simplic- 
ity, vi.,  6,  7,  11,  12,  69,  194: 
as  a  metaphysical  theory 
and  au  ethical  system,  218, 
231 ;  a  doctrine  of  grace  and 
truth,  246;  practical  results 
of,  107;  key  to,  2,  16,  17; 
requirements  of,  248;  its 
meaning,  7,  43,  50,  58,  108, 
172,  193,  199,  240;  its  re- 
wards, 179,  202;  to  bring  the 
kingdom  of  God,  209;  its 
relation  to  the  Church,  209- 
244;  its  adaptability  to  Chris- 
tians, 241;  to  the  philoso- 
pher, 242;  to  the  "  average  " 
man,  243;  difficulty  in  obey- 
ing, 14, 16,  112,  132, 160,  173, 
194,  259;  belief  in,  160  et 
seq.;  requirements  of,  245 
et  seq.;  a  protest  against 
ceremonial,  219:  its  conceal- 
ment, 49,  68,  90,  173,  174; 
and  military  regulations,  19, 
22,  104,  223 ;  it3  universality, 
241;  delusions  with  regard 
to,  23, 101,  114,  191  et  seq., 
204;  will  overcome  the 
world,  244;  substance  of, 
124;  and  social  customs,  58, 


90,  93,  133,  194;  where  are 
its  martyrs  ?  195. 

Jews,  criminal  law  of,  27. 

John,  167. 

John  the  Baptist,  43,  54,  108, 
135,  145,  146. 

Jonah,  146;  story  of,  176. 

Judaism,  124,  220. 

Judgment,  parable  of  the  last, 
139,  152. 

Laborer,  worthy  of  his  suste- 
nance, 200,  205;  rewards  of, 
201,  203. 

Law,  the  eternal,  53,  55. 

Law  of  struggle,  47,  181,  197. 

Lazarus,  147. 

libertinage,  meaning  of,  83. 

Libertinism,  83,  85. 

Liberty,  law  of,  29. 

Life,  essence  of,  118,  138,  165; 
the  personal,  134,  139,  174; 
salvation  of,  152,  165;  re- 
nunciation of,  141,  142;  the 
eternal,  143;  how  perpetu- 
ated, 150;  rewards  of,  167; 
doctrine  of,  enforced  by  the 
police,  232. 

Loaves  and  fishes,  lesson  of 
the,  206. 

Luke,  34,  54,  55,  80. 

Luther,  34,  84. 

Manu,  laws  of,  89. 

Mark,  80. 

Martyrs,  Christian,  number  of, 
192. 

Martyrs  to  the  world,  183,  193. 

Materialism,  122. 

Men,  brotherhood  of,  110,  246, 
256;  intercourse  with,  essen- 
tial to  happiness,  188;  nature 


INDEX. 


273 


of,  112;  debt  to  the  past,  141; 

mutual     dependence,     207; 

temptations  against,  246.   „ 
(xeTavoia,  meaning  of,  135,  141. 
Michael,  Archbishop,  93. 
Military  regulations,  19. 
jjLoixacrOai,  meaning  of,  83. 
Monasticism,  contrary  to  the 

doctrine  of  Jesus,  176. 
Monogamy  the  natural  law  of 

humanity,  250. 
Moscow,  183. 
Mount,  the  Sermon  on  the,  5, 

6,  10,  11,  17,  26,  78,  79,  108. 
Miiller,  Max,  148. 
Nationality,   renunciation   of, 

257. 
Nature,  the  law  of,  46;  com- 
munion   with,    essential    to 

happiness,  185. 
Neighbor,   meaning  of,  97   et 

seq. 
Nicodemus,  60,  108,  125. 
v6fx.os,  meaning  of,  56. 
Oaths,  the  commandment    a- 

gainst,  87  et  seq. ;  destruc- 
tion of  happiness,  252;  evils 

of,  252. 
Origen,  102. 
Pascal,  134. 
Paul,   x.,  30,  56,  80,  88,  115  ; 

his      metaphysico-cabalistic 

doctrine,  219. 
Peace,  the  reign  of,  108;  how 

violated,  109. 
Penalty,  the  death,  36. 
Pentateuch,  57,  148. 
Persons,  respect  of,  29. 
Pessimism,  122. 
Peter,  11,  145,  167,  168,  180. 


Pharisees,   54,    59,  60,  85,  88, 

143,  178. 
Philosophers,  and  the  problem 

of  existence,  229. 
Pilate,  135,  175. 
iropvelq,  meaning  of,  83  et  seq. 
Poverty,  the  blessings  of,  199; 

indispensable  to  the  follower 

of  Jesus,  200. 
prissaiaga,  meaning  of,  85. 
Prophets,  the  Hebrew,  43,  57, 

143. 
qum,  meaning  of,  146. 
raca,  meaning  of,  73,  76. 
Reason,  authority  of,  124. 
Redemption,  dogma    of,    120, 

122,  153. 
Religions,  requirements  of,  220. 
Renan,  31,  93. 
Repentance,   60;   necessity  of, 

135. 
Resurrection,  not    taught    by 

Jesus,  143. 
resusciter,  meaning  of,  146. 
Reuss,  79. 

Revolution,  the  French,  36. 
Revolutionists,    atheistic,    39; 

Christian,  39.     ■ 
Riches,  the  struggle  for,  184. 
Righteousness,     progress     to- 
ward, 48. 
Sadducees,  60,  143. 
Samaritan,  98. 
Sanhedrim,  25. 
Schopenhauer,  148. 
Science,  hostile  to  the  Church, 

223. 
Security,  struggle  for,  its  futil« 

ity,  198. 
Seneca,  89. 


274 


INDEX. 


Sisyphus,  labor  of,  184. 

Slave,  39. 

Slavery,  sanctioned  by  the 
Church,  221. 

Slavophile,  39. 

Socrates,  124, 126. 

Soldier,  at  Borovitzky  Gate, 
19,  88;  Russian  nickname 
for,  88. 

Solomon,  134. 

Son  of  man,  doctrine  regard- 
ing, 125  et  seq. ;  142, 150, 152, 
156,  263. 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  68. 

Spiritism,  123. 

State,  service  of,  21,  22,  257; 
independent  of  the  Church, 
223. 

States,  divisions  into,  a  barba- 
rism, 107. 

Stoics,  124,  173. 

Strauss,  41,  93. 

Suffering,  useless,  183. 

Sukhareff  Tower,  183. 

Talents,  parable  of  the,  142. 

Talmud,  17,  56,  143,  173. 

Theologians,  declarations  of,  6. 

Theophylacfc,  33. 

Thief,  on  the  cross,  vii. 

Tiele,  148. 

Tischendorf,  55,  75. 

Tohu,  18,  19,  21,  22,  42,  43. 

Torah,  56,  61,  68. 

Tribunals,  23,  24;  contrary  to 


law  of  Jesus,  25  et  seq.\ 
sanctioned  by  the  Church, 
221. 

Trinity,  14,  40,  58,  116,  117, 
127. 

Truth,  Christian.  4. 

Tubingen,  school  of,  33. 

Turks,  259. 

verdammen,  meaning  of,  34. 

Violence,  renunciation  of,  38; 
organized,  45,  196;  destruc- 
tive to  happiness,  253;  temp- 
tations to,  254;  futility  of, 
259  et  seq. 

Virgins,  parable  of,  139. 

voskresnovit,  meaning  of,  146. 

Vulgate,  34. 

War,  organized  murder,  101, 
192;  justified  by  the  Church, 
211,  221, 

Wars  of  our  century,  victims 
of,  193. 

Work,  an  inevitable  condition 
of  happiness,  186,  201,  205, 
207. 

World,  the  doctrine  of,  illus- 
trated, 129;  sufferings  for, 
181, 185-192;  its  commands, 
191;  its  necessities,  184  et 
seq.;  justification  of,  188; 
its  relation  to  the  Church, 
221  et  seq. 

Worldly  advantage,  11. 

zanah,  meaning  of,  83. 


3vsWS»55 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


HFeb'49AP 
18Dec'57BK 


£i)w'tt  SK 


*£c 


MAY 


'DlO 


:d  L.D 

18  1991 


25  7967 
WEC'D  LD       received 

0E0    9«M/jue2-'66-2PH 
9Jan'6l/<j^ 


REC'D  LI 
DEC 

•5Nov'58CS| 

S      REC'D  LD 
|     NOV    31858 

4 

LD  21-100m-9,'48(B399sl6)476 


'"m25  19§f*W?l8/S67 


LOAN  DEPT. 
DEAB 


5 


RECEIVED 

REC'D  \JST  1*  '67-5  PM 
MAR  2  4  1961 

OCT  1  6  1974  9 1 

«&p«-    JAM    776 


fo^Jk*?.~J 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 

)%{  llllllllllillllll 


